Week 3 Discussion 

Hello, Professor and class.

1.·The power of advertising is in its persuasive influence, and this influence can take
several different forms. Research and explain one example of persuasive advertising
within the last year that is unfair and deceptive and that violates the law in regard to
product liability. Be sure to identify and explain the law in your answer. See Section 13-
2: Advertising as a Contract Basis for Product Liability in your textbook. Provide
support for your response.

First of all, I hope everyone is safe and healthy. Our textbook states that advertisement is one
form of express warranties (Jennings, 1). An example of persuasive advertising within the last
year that is unfair and deceptive and violates the law in regard to product liability is what
Marketing Architects was involved. Marketing Architects is an ad agency that created and
disseminate radio ads for diet products pitched with a host of allegedly misleading claims and
practices, according to the Federal Trade Commission (Fair, 2). Due to these unfair and
unlawful practices conducted by the ad agency, Direct Alternatives and its principles gained
millions of sales from deceptively advertising weight loss products without scientific
evidence to support their claims. Due to these unlawful and unethical practices, Marketing
Architects received a $2 million judgment and was prohibited from making any gut check
claims (Herzfeld, 3).

2. In relation to government enforcement of product warranty and liability claims,

research the Internet or the Strayer Library for information about the latest activities
by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Analyze
the current state of government regulation for product safety to determine whether each
administrative agency is generally proactive or reactive. Provide one specific example
within the last year from each agency.

The U.S. government established agencies in order to protect people’s safety and reduce the
risks of injuries and fatalities associated with consumer products. These agencies include the
Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), and
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The FDA is both proactive
and reactive in that it evaluates and conduct analysis test for drugs and food before allowing
these products to be widely available in the United States while also responsible for drug
warnings and necessary recalls (FDA, 4). One specific example is regulating vaping products
and their associated risks, which is significantly associated with lung illnesses (FDAA, 4).
Considering the amount of testing it does and the bounds of its responsibilities. I think this
agency can be regarded as more proactive than reactive.

Meanwhile, the CPSC aims to set and enforce safety standards, monitor safety, assess
potential hazards, and conduct recalls of products deemed dangerous and/or harmful (CPSC,
5). Since the agency prefers to issue recalls and perform investigations concerning the risks
and hazardous products, these can be considered more of a reactive approach. One specific
example is when CPSC announced recalls of more than 165,000 inclined sleepers to prevent
risks of suffocation. CPSC is more likely responsible for monitoring consumer products such
as toys, tools, electronics, and appliances. Lastly, NHTSA is primarily accountable in keeping
people safe within the U.S. roadways and can also be considered both proactive and reactive
with respect to its influence and responsibilities (NHTSA, 6). However, the agency can be
regarded as more reactive than proactive. One example is when the agency conducted tire and
airbag recall in order to improve safety. Nonetheless, I think these organizations can be both
proactive and reactive in their own ways and bounds of influence.
Reference: 
1. Marianne Jennings. (2018). Business: It's Legal, Ethical, and Global Environment (11th
ed.). Mason, OH: Cengage Learning.
2. Lesley Fair. (2018). Ad agency to pay $2 million for role in deceptive weight loss and
“free” offers. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs/business-blog/2018/02/ad-agency-pay-
2-million-role-deceptive-weight-loss-free. 
3. Oliver Herzfeld. (2019). Ad Agency Agrees To Pay Largest Fine Ever.
Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/oliverherzfeld/2019/04/17/ad-agency-agrees-to-pay-
largest-fine-ever/#156c56ab3b60. 
4. FDA. https://www.fda.gov/news-events/public-health-focus/lung-injuries-associated-use-
vaping-products
5. CPSC. https://www.cpsc.gov/Newsroom/News-Releases
6. NHTSA. https://www.nhtsa.gov/laws-regulations. 

52 minutes agoAna Dobbins

RE: Week 3 Discussion

The power of advertising is in its persuasive influence, and this influence can take several
different forms. Research and explain one example of persuasive advertising within the last
year that is unfair and deceptive and that violates the law in regard to product liability. Be
sure to identify and explain the law in your answer. See Section 13-2: Advertising as a
Contract Basis for Product Liability in your textbook. Provide support for your response.

In relation to government enforcement of product warranty and liability claims, research the
Internet or the Strayer Library for information about the latest activities by the Food and
Drug Administration (FDA), Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), and the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Analyze the current state of government
regulation for product safety to determine whether each administrative agency is generally
proactive or reactive. Provide one specific example within the last year from each agency.

Who doesn't love a cool refreshing drink on a hot Texas afternoon? And if that cool
refreshing drink is healthy for you - then all the better...or not. The parent company of Dr.
Pepper Snapple makes, distributes and advertises Canada Dry Ginger Ale. So what is the key
word in that refreshing drink? The word ginger of course because implies that it is made
from a nature grown spice that is widely used in folk medicine, which can lead a consumer to
think that buying this beverage not only has the delicious flavor of "real ginger" but also has
medicinal properties. In looking at the law, Canada Dry engaged in false advertising as
defined by the Federal Trade Commission Act, passed in 1914, to "prevent unfair and
deceptive trade practices" (Jennings, 2016). The 1914 Feral Trade Commission Act was
followed by the Congressional act of Wheeler-Lea Act of 1938. The Wheeler-Lea Act of 1938
expanded the scope of the FTC to regulate "unfair and deceptive" trade practices. The
Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA), is used by the Attorney General in Texas (the state in
which I currently reside) and lists many items that can be classified as false, deceptive or
misleading.

Deceptive Trade Practices Act defines deceptive advertising as (a) disseminate statements
known to to be materially misrepresentive of the cost or character of a tangible personal
property, a security, service or anything offer for the purpose of selling... or (A2) inducing a
person to contract with regard to the tangible personal property, security, service, or
anything offered. By the addition of Acts 1972, 63rd Leg., p.322, it is further clarified and
explained the word "Intentionally" as actual awareness of the falsity, deception or failure
constituting a breach of warranty... So what does this mean to Mr. and Ms. Consumer? It
means that when the makers of Canada Dry purposefully added the claim "made from real
ginger" that was an expressed warranty to the contents of product. In looking at the legal
definition of "expressed warranty" it can be inferred that since the words "made from real
ginger" was clearly stated verbally (in a commercial intended to advertise the content of the
product) or in writing (such as putting it on the packaging) the company engaged in false
advertising. The makers of Canada Dry repeatedly told the consumer that their product had
an ingredient that it not in fact contain. The class action lawsuit brought against Dr Pepper
Snapple Group, Inc. includes several examples of the commercials which repeatedly
demonstrate that the product contains real ginger when a scientific analysis of the finished
product showed no detectable ginger and requests relief for Breach of Expressed Warranty.
The lawsuit alleges a Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability in that the "product
does not conform to the promises or affirmations of fact". So when Dr. Pepper Snapple
Group stated that their product contained an ingredient it did not, that the company in fact
lied to Mr. and Ms. Consumer to get them to buy their product. Dr. Pepper Snapple group
enjoyed a 9% increase in sales during the marketing campaign with the deceptive tag line.

Food and Drug Administration (FDA) - actively regulates the production and sale of
medications and products for both humans and animals. The FDA overseas the Office of
Global Policy and Strategy, Compliance and enforcement operations, as well as human trials.
These activities are considered proactive as the agency is directly involved in the
development and manufacturing stages of a product being available to the general public.

Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) - I would consider this agency as reactive in
that it is primarily involved in the product recall of defective or dangerous products after
they have hit the market for public consumption. Unlike the FDA, which is involved in the
development stages of the product, CPSC gets involved only after a potential or real problem
occurs that is a public health or safety threat.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) - I would consider the NHTSA both a
proactive and reactive agency. The government agency writes and enforces safety
standards as well as standards for fuel and anti-theft. The agency also assists the consumer
in filing complaints and the complaint will be added to a list accessible by the general public,
this is the proactive part of the agency. The reactive portion of the agency is much like the
CPSC in that they are involved in letting the public know when there is a vehicle recall for
safety reasons. The recall notice will inform the consumer of a potential defect in the
vehicle and where and how to get the defect repaired. I consider this a reactive position
because the issue or public safety concern is on products already on the market and the
agency is taking action after the fact.

References:

(n.d.). Retrieved from https://texasattorneygeneral.gov/consumer-protection/file-consumer-

complaint/consumer-rights
Jennings, M. (2016). Business its legal, ethical, and global environment. Mason, Ohio u.a.:
Cengage Learning.

Attorney General of Texas. Deceptive trade practices and consumer protection act: Chapter
17, Texas business and commerce code as amended by the 68th Texas Legislature, Deceptive
trade practices and consumer protection act: Chapter 17, Texas business and commerce
code as amended by the 68th Texas Legislature (1984). Austin, TX.

RE: FROM THE PROFESSOR...

COLLAPSE
Overall Rating:
12345
12345
Within the context of product liability, author Marrianne M. Jennings, explains in the
textbook "Business Ethics and Government" that it comes the latin phrase "Caveat emptor",
which means the buyer beware(1, p.449). This statement could not be further from the
truth, in dealing with the deceptive bussiness dealings. For example, was a case with the
"FTC", or the Federal Trade Commission, in which Jennings explains as the "Wheeler -Lea Act
of 1938", which challenges unfair practices or activities(1, p.453). Recently on April 21st
2020, the online retailer called "Fashion Nova" will have to pay a total of $9.3 million, in
which $7.04 to the FTC and $2.26 million will go the victims of fraudulent advertisement(2).
The clothes retail promised shoppers their items could be shipped in two days, but the
consumers never received their items(2). The article goes on to explain that when, when
customers asked about gift cards, which is a policy of the store,they did not receive them or
a basic refund(2). The FTC even explained in its suit against the company, that they even
violated the policy called "Mail Order Rule", which is supposed to notify consumers of late
shipping in lieu in the how business was actually being conducted with the case of items
being late (2). "Jennings explains this situation as content control and accuracy"(1 p.453).
This concept only seemed appropriate, given the nature of crime, the understanding of why
free trade has to regulated very carefully.

In Accordance with the FDA, Jennings explains that the "FDA" or "Food And Drug
administration", weighs in heavy on the advertisements based on health concerns(1, p.460).
On April 1st, 2020, the FDA demanded that Zantac and all related products be removed from
the stores immediately(3). The reason why is the given fact that Zintac has a chemical in it
called "Nitrosodimethylamine" or "NDMA", which is a cancer-causing agent(3). Zintac known
by its other name "ranitidine", which is susceptible to cancer by leaving it stored in a area
where the temperature gets warmer(3). The reason why it was just discovered, is because
according to the FDA, it was not until this past September that they acquired the technology
to explore this hazardous chemical (3). The FDA, demands that those who have purchased it,
not continue taking it, especially in lieu of the Covid-19 (3). The FDA wants to be able to
monitor the situation closely, in order to prevent potential tragedies(3). Even though
nothing in life is perfect, this seemed negligent on the part of the company, to not study the
product carefully when it was first released.

The Center For Auto Safety.org recorded on September 4th, 2019, the National
Transportation Safety Board or NTSB, issued a recall for the "Tesla", in which its auto pilot
malfunctioned, even while company falsely advertised that the autopilot was state of the
art(4). On January 18, 2018 Tesla was in an accident with a fire engine, due to the autopilot
feature(4). Even after multiple deaths, injuries and incidents, Tesla still insisted that the
autopilot was not to blame(4). Tesla was still dogmatic in claiming that they check the
feature(4). However in accordance with NSTB.org, the NSTB did a study for 30 minutes,
which they found that the autopilot was not as sufficient as they claimed, one minute and 18
seconds into using the feature, it did not detect an on coming vehicle, until it was right
behind it(5). The vehicle changed lanes four seconds before the simulated test crash(5). The
NSTB is still investigating this matter(5).

Sources

1. Marianne.MJennings,2016."Business, It's Legal, Ethics and Global Enviroment "p.449, 453,

460, 466

2.https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2020/04/fashion-nova-will-pay-93-
million-consumer-refunds-settle-ftc

3. https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-requests-removal-all-
ranitidine-products-zantac-market

4. https://www.autosafety.org/center-for-auto-safety-calls-for-tesla-recall-after-ntsb-
report/

5. https://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/NR20190904.aspx

Hello, Brandon.

Thank you so much for sharing your research and these articles in the class this week. I like
the sample company you provided in the class pertaining to persuasive advertising that is
unfair and deceptive and violates the law. I have to agree that such advertisements must be
appropriately regulated because it deceives people In understanding the purpose and
function of the product while assuming that these are facts when these claims are not
supported with legal, scientific, or credible evidence (FTC, 2020). Indeed, this can be very
alarming to us as consumers, especially when it comes to imposing risks and harm to our
health. Overall, this is a great post and I really enjoyed reading your perspective regarding
this issue.

Reference:
FTC. (2020). Fashion Nova Will Pay $9.3 Million for Consumer Refunds To Settle FTC Charges
It Violated Rules On Shipping, Refunds. Retrieved from https://www.ftc.gov/news-
events/press-releases/2020/04/fashion-nova-will-pay-93-million-consumer-refunds-settle-
ftc.

Sarah Haberecht
RE: Week 3 Discussion

The power of advertising is in its persuasive influence, and this influence can take several
different forms. Research and explain one example of persuasive advertising within the last
year that is unfair and deceptive and that violates the law in regard to product liability. Be
sure to identify and explain the law in your answer. See Section 13-2: Advertising as a
Contract Basis for Product Liability in your textbook. Provide support for your response.

In September of 2019, the Federal Trade Commission sued Match.com for using fake and
persuasive advertising to convince individuals to register for paid subscriptions. The lawsuit
states Match.com would do this in multiple ways. The first thing they did was send
individuals who were registered with the free version of the website would receive emails
stating someone had expressed interest in the consumer, they would also receive an email
from Match.com encouraging them to subscribe to the paid services subscriptions to view
the content. The Federal Trade Commission stated Match.com did this knowing that a
majority of the consumers were originally being targeted by fraudulent Match.com profiles.
The FTC states that consumers signed up for these paid services hoping they would find a
true connection. The reality was the consumer would come into contact with a fraudulent
account prior to Match determining the accounts were fraudulent and shut down. If they did
determine the account was fraudulent and shut down, the consumer with the paid
subscription would be alerted the page was unavailable but were still charged from their
paid subscription. According to the Federal Trade Commission website, “In some months
between 2013 and 2016, more than half of the instant messages and favorites that
consumers received came from accounts that Match identified as fraudulent, according to
the complaint.” (2019)

Another allegation was that Match.com promised consumers a free six-month if the
consumer did not “meet someone special.” The Federal Trade Commission stated that
Match did not disclose to consumers that they had to abide by numerous requirements in
order to receive the free six-month service. Due to the fact that consumers were unaware of
the terms, they did not receive their credit at the end of the six months.

Lastly in the complaint, the Federal Trade Commission stated that due to the
deceptive advertising, consumers would attempt to cancel their services and receive a
reimbursement. Match.com would then prohibit the consumer from using the services they
had paid for. The Federal Trade Commission stated that Match.com violated the Restore
Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act (ROSCA) by making it extremely difficult for consumers to
cancel their paid subscriptions. This ultimately led to consumers being charged for additional
months of renewals.

This example is clearly an example of an expressed warranty by Match.com to

consumers. Jennings describes an expressed warranty as, “An express warranty as provided
in the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) is an express promise (oral or written) by the seller
as to the quality, abilities, or performance of a product (UCC § 2-313).” Match.com’s
deceptive practices led to consumers believing if they could meet “the one” if they utilized
the site to its full abilities. They could do this by purchasing a paid subscription. The
deceptive piece comes from Match.com having emails sent to the consumers from accounts
that were fraudulent and would not be possible for consumers to meet “the one.”
Consumers were then held to the paid subscriptions they purchased based upon the
persuasive advertising.

In relation to government enforcement of product warranty and liability claims, research the
Internet or the Strayer Library for information about the latest activities by the Food and
Drug Administration (FDA), Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), and the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Analyze the current state of government
regulation for product safety to determine whether each administrative agency is generally
proactive or reactive. Provide one specific example within the last year from each agency.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has been extremely focused on the COVID-19
pandemic. They have been working with other government agencies to help protect the
public. Prior to this, the FDA has also been extremely proactive in its assistance with the
Opioid Crisis. According to the FDA website they have done this with a focus on the
following: Decrease exposure & prevent new addiction, support treatment of those with
opioid use disorder, foster development of novel pain treatment therapies, improve
enforcement & access benefit/risk (2019). One of the main ways they have done this is by
working to get Naloxone offered in more emergency situations. They are also encouraging
manufacturers to make generics of this medicine and also over-the-counter solutions.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) focuses on protecting consumers from
potentially harmful products by alerting consumers of all recalls. These are posted nearly
daily on their website to alert consumers and this information is sent out to distributers of
these products. An example of this was on April 9, 2020, they alerted the public of the recall
of a commercial-grade electrical receptacle units due to possibility of overheating causing
potential burns. The website provides all the information for consumers to return the
products, policies to follow, impacted models, where the products were sold and the
number of potential units impacted.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) focuses on protecting the
vehicles on the roads. They monitor vehicle safety and recalls of vehicles or vehicle parts.
They are very proactive in their monitoring, by providing a place for consumers to check
their VIN number for possible recalls. An example of the agency was their focus on the
additional recall of Takata Air Bag recall. They alerted the public that the airbags may not
deploy or may explode. Their website provides information about what specific vehicles are
impacted, the number impacted and where the consumer can check their VIN number to see
if they are impacted.

All of these departments are very proactive in their approaches to protecting consumers and
holding the correct organizations responsible.

Sources:

FTC Sues Owner of Online Dating Service Match.com for Using Fake Love Interest Ads To
Trick Consumers into Paying for a Match.com Subscription. https://www.ftc.gov/news-
events/press-releases/2019/09/ftc-sues-owner-online-dating-service-matchcom-using-fake-
love

Having Naloxone on Hand Can Save a Life During an Opioid Overdose.

https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/having-naloxone-hand-can-save-life-
during-opioid-overdose

Marianne M. Jennings. (2018). Business: Its Legal, Ethical, and Global Environment (11th
ed.). Cengage.

More Takata Air Bags Recalled. https://www.nhtsa.gov/recalls/takata-air-bags-nadi

Opioid Medications. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/information-drug-class/opioid-medications

Pass & Seymour Recalls Commercial-Grade Electrical Receptacles Due to Burn Hazard.
https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls/2020/Pass-and-Seymour-Recalls-Commercial-Grade-
Electrical-Receptacles-Due-to-Burn-Hazard

Hello, Sarah!

I hope you are doing well right now. Thank you for providing a very thoughtful post about
this week’s discussion topic. You have clearly provided detailed ad informative answers to
the questions. You have chosen a fascinating unfair and deceptive advertising that violates
the law and I am glad that the lawsuit reached to fairly reasonable verdict. I think this is one
of the significant impacts of what product liability laws can do in order to protect the public
interest from harmful or dangerous products or even from fictitious, deceptive, or
fraudulent promises/conducts (Jennings, 1). I also like how you have thoroughly addressed
the roles and current status of the FDA, CPSC, and NHTSA. Indeed, these regulatory agencies
play essential roles in keeping us safe from potential risky, dangerous, pr harmful consumer
goods/products. Without them, I cannot imagine how we are going to assess product safety
when we buy consumer goods.

Reference:
1. Marianne M. Jennings. (2018). Business: Its Legal, Ethical, and Global Environment (11th
ed.). Cengage.