Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

Understanding False Advertising Claims: An Excerpt from the Advertising Law Tool Kit

By Jessie F. Beeber & Roger A. Colaizzi on November 27, 2024
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

Join us as we spotlight select chapters of Venable’s popular Advertising Law Tool Kit, which helps marketing teams navigate the legal risk of campaigns and promotions. Click here to download the entire Tool Kit, and tune in to the Ad Law Tool Kit Show podcast, to hear the authors of this chapter dive deeper into the issue of Understanding False Advertising Claims in this week’s episode.


The first rule of advertising compliance is that advertising must be truthful and not misleading to consumers. In addition, all material advertising claims must be substantiated. When competitors’ ads do not meet those tests, there are numerous venues in which they may be challenged. When challenging competitors’ advertising, it is critical to understand the different ways in which an advertising claim can be false or misleading.

Types of false advertising claims:

The ad is literally false. This is the easiest claim to make, because if an ad is literally false, or false on its face, consumer deception is presumed. For example, an ad claiming, “We are the only manufacturer of BPA-free bottles” is literally false where a consumer can get BPA-free bottles manufactured elsewhere. The claim, however, must be objectively verifiable and not just “puffery,” which is vague or subjective language that the reasonable consumer would not take seriously. Saying “We have the best pizza in the world,” for example, is likely puffery.

The ad is impliedly false. An ad may technically be true but misleading nonetheless. The question is: What does the consumer take to be the message? For example, an ad claiming a product is “cholesterol free” might technically be true but misleading if the product actually raises cholesterol levels. Consumer survey evidence is generally needed to prove the ad gives consumers a false impression.

The ad is “false by necessary implication.” On rare occasions, an ad may be literally true but have only one unambiguous, false meaning in context. Consumer survey evidence is not necessary to prove falsity. For example, the claim “No restaurant chef in New York uses an ABC mixer,” even if true, could be false by necessary implication if ABC does not make a professional-grade mixer, because the only possible meaning in this context is that ABC makes a professional-grade mixer rejected by New York chefs.

The ad is not substantiated. The evidence required to substantiate an ad depends on what the ad says. For example, the claim “two out of three doctors recommend ABC” requires a reliable survey to that effect. Establishment claims, such as claims that “tests prove X,” or “studies show X,” must be supported by “competent and reliable scientific evidence”—i.e., tests, studies, or scientific evidence evaluated by qualified people, using methods accepted by experts.

A comparative or superiority claim in the ad is false. This occurs when an advertiser compares its product with a competitor’s (by name or clear identification, i.e., the “leading brand”) and/or claims the advertiser’s product is superior to the competitor’s. Where the ad is a simple comparison, the competitor must show the ad is false. For a comparative establishment claim, the competitor can win by attacking the tests the advertiser relied on.

To learn about false advertising claims, contact Jessie Beeber or Roger Colaizzi. For more insights into advertising law, bookmark our All About Advertising Law blog and subscribe to our monthly newsletter. 

Jessie F. Beeber

Jessie Beeber is an experienced litigator and co-chair of Venable’s Commercial Litigation New York Practice Group. Working across intellectual property (IP) and commercial litigation practice areas, Jessie is accomplished in all aspects of federal and state court litigation, mediation, and arbitration. Over the…

Jessie Beeber is an experienced litigator and co-chair of Venable’s Commercial Litigation New York Practice Group. Working across intellectual property (IP) and commercial litigation practice areas, Jessie is accomplished in all aspects of federal and state court litigation, mediation, and arbitration. Over the years, she has litigated many high-profile IP disputes, including those involving false advertising, trademark, copyright, and right of publicity issues. Jessie has handled financial, corporate, insurance coverage, and business tort cases nationwide. She has secured litigation victories for leading artists, brands, publishers, financial institutions, real estate partnerships and other entities, private equity firms, and their insurers.

Read more about Jessie F. BeeberEmail
Show more Show less
Roger A. Colaizzi

Roger Colaizzi chairs Venable’s national Advertising Litigation group. Roger has significant trial experience litigating Lanham Act false advertising, state deceptive trade practices, unfair competition, advertising class actions, trial and continuity marketing, direct-to-consumer marketing, social networking, affiliate advertising, domain names, keyword advertising, and other…

Roger Colaizzi chairs Venable’s national Advertising Litigation group. Roger has significant trial experience litigating Lanham Act false advertising, state deceptive trade practices, unfair competition, advertising class actions, trial and continuity marketing, direct-to-consumer marketing, social networking, affiliate advertising, domain names, keyword advertising, and other e-commerce matters. He has extensive trial experience in litigating brand protection advertising issues, including anti-counterfeiting, trademark, trade dress, patent, and copyright. He has successfully brought and defended against dozens of emergency preliminary injunction motions and requests for temporary restraining orders— important remedies in competitive advertising and the protection of IP, product brands, and other proprietary assets.

Read more about Roger A. ColaizziEmail
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Antitrust, Competition and Trade
  • Blog:
    All About Advertising Law
  • Organization:
    Venable LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo