Hubbry Logo
PufferyPufferyMain
Open search
Puffery
Community hub
Puffery
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Puffery
Puffery
Puffery
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
1881 Italian ad for Cannabis indica cigarillos, promising to "stop the most violent attacks of asthma, nervous cough, colds, extinction of voice, facial neuralgia and insomnia, and to combat all laryngeal and respiratory ailments."

Puffery is undue or exaggerated praise.[1][2] Puffery serves to "puff up" what is being described. In law, puffery is usually invoked as a defense argument: it identifies general praising speech, typically produced by a seller, which is not expected to be relied upon and does not give rise to legal liability. In a circular manner, legal explanations for this normative position describe the non-enforceable speech as a statement that no "reasonable person" would take seriously.[3][4]

Origin

[edit]

In a legal context, the term originated in the 1892 English Court of Appeal case Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company, which centred on whether a monetary reimbursement should be paid when an influenza preventive device failed to work. The manufacturers had paid for advertising stating that £100 would be paid in such circumstances then failed to follow this promise. Part of their defence was that such a statement was "mere puff" and not meant to be taken seriously. While the defence ultimately lost the case, the principle was confirmed that certain statements made by advertisers that were obviously not made in a serious manner could be exempt from usual rules relating to promises in open contracts.

Federal Trade Commission definition

[edit]

The United States Federal Trade Commission (FTC) defined puffery as a "term frequently used to denote the exaggerations reasonably to be expected of a seller as to the degree of quality of his product, the truth or falsity of which cannot be precisely determined."[5][6]

The FTC stated in 1983 that puffery does not warrant enforcement action by the commission. In its FTC Policy Statement on Deception, the Commission stated: "The Commission generally will not pursue cases involving obviously exaggerated or puffing representations, i.e., those that the ordinary consumers do not take seriously."[6]

Puff piece

[edit]

Puff piece is an idiom for a journalistic form of puffery: an article or story of exaggerating praise that often ignores or downplays opposing viewpoints or evidence to the contrary.[7] In some cases, reviews of films, albums, or products (e.g., a new car or television set) may be considered to be "puff pieces", due to the actual or perceived bias of the reviewer: a review of a product, film, or event that is written by a sympathetic reviewer or by an individual who has a connection to the product or event in question, either in terms of an employment relationship or other links. For example, a major media conglomerate that owns both print media and record companies may instruct an employee in one of its newspapers to do a review of an album which is being released by the conglomerate's record company.

Although some journalists may possess professional independence and integrity, and insist on producing an unbiased review, in other cases a writer may succumb to the pressure and pen a biased "puff piece" which praises the product or event while omitting any discussion of any shortcomings. In some cases, "puff pieces" purport to provide a review of the product or event, but instead merely provide peacock words ("an amazing recording"; "revealed" for 'announced' or 'said'), weasel words ("probably one of the most important albums of the 2000s"; "Perhaps one of the leading bands of the 2010s") and tabloid-style filler which is peripheral or irrelevant to assessing the qualities of the product or event ("during the filming, there were rumours that romantic sparks flew between the two co-leads, who were often seen talking together on the set").

The financial relationship between the product company or entertainment firm and the reviewer is not always as obvious as a cash payment. In some cases, a small group of reviewers may be given an exclusive invitation to test-drive a new sports car or see a new film before it is released. This privileged access to the product may lead the reviewer to do a biased review, either out of a sense of obligation, or because of a concern that the failure to produce a "puff piece" will lead to the loss of future preview privileges. In some cases, the potential for bias in invitation-only preview sessions is substantially heightened when the reviewers are flown in to the location for the review, given fancy hotel rooms, and provided catered food and drinks during the actual review. The most egregious cases of this situation occur when, instead of inviting the reviewers to the company headquarters or another logical venue, the company gives all-expense paid tickets to Hawaii or Mexico, and holds the preview screening of the film or the product launch there.

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 a lucrative way to build the reputation of a product that has no medical value.[8]

See also

[edit]
Look up puffery or puff piece in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Puffery

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Puffery is a in advertising law that permits sellers to make exaggerated, subjective claims about the quality or superiority of their products or services, provided these statements are not presented as verifiable facts and are not reasonably relied upon by consumers. Such claims, often involving superlatives like "the best" or "world-class," are viewed as mere opinions or sales talk rather than literal assertions, distinguishing them from , which involves objectively false or misleading statements about specific attributes. In the United States, puffery is not pursued as deceptive under (FTC) policies, which focus enforcement on objective claims requiring substantiation, as subjective puffery is deemed unlikely to mislead reasonable consumers. Under Section 43(a) of the , courts similarly dismiss puffery claims in lawsuits because they lack the specificity needed to prove falsity or reliance, though boundaries can blur if puffery implies measurable benefits. This legal tolerance traces back to early 20th-century commercial practices, where exaggerated promotion was seen as inherent to competitive markets, evolving through FTC precedents and judicial decisions to balance free expression in advertising with . Common examples include slogans like "the ultimate driving machine" for automobiles or "America's favorite" for consumer goods, which courts have upheld as non-actionable puffery due to their vagueness and lack of empirical backing required. However, when such statements are paired with specific data or imply testable superiority—such as claiming a product is "50% better" without evidence—they may cross into territory, subjecting advertisers to liability, injunctions, or damages. This distinction underscores puffery's role in allowing creative while safeguarding against material deception in commercial speech.

Definition and Characteristics

Definition

Puffery refers to promotional statements in commercial contexts that consist of subjective opinions, vague exaggerations, or unsubstantiated boasts of superiority, such as claims like "the best product on the market," which reasonable consumers are not expected to interpret as verifiable facts. These statements are distinguished from factual representations because they lack specificity and measurability, rendering them non-actionable under laws prohibiting or . The term "puffery" derives from the verb "puff," meaning to inflate or exaggerate through self-interested promotion, with the noun form emerging in 1782 to describe systematic or inflated laudation. In its legal application, it originated in 19th-century English usage for boastful commercial , evolving into a recognized that shields such expressions from liability. Puffery applies broadly to both and sales transactions, serving as a key defense against allegations of fraudulent or by emphasizing that no reasonable buyer would rely on the statements as literal truths. This scope underscores its role in permitting colorful, opinion-based promotion while drawing a line against deceptive practices that could mislead consumers.

Key Characteristics

Puffery is characterized primarily by its subjectivity and vagueness, distinguishing it from verifiable factual assertions that could form the basis of legal liability. Subjective statements express opinions or exaggerations that cannot be objectively measured or proven true or false, such as claims of "world-class quality" or "the best product on the market," which rely on personal interpretation rather than empirical evidence. In contrast, objective claims, like "contains 50% more vitamins than competitors," invite substantiation and potential challenge if unsubstantiated, as they imply testable facts. This inherent vagueness ensures that puffery remains in the realm of rhetorical salesmanship, immune from scrutiny under deception laws because it lacks the precision to mislead through falsifiability. A core feature of puffery is the lack of reasonable reliance, where statements are perceived as mere talk rather than inducements to action. Courts and regulators assess whether a reasonable would interpret such claims literally, typically concluding that general superiority assertions—without specific, quantifiable support—are dismissed as hyperbolic promotions not warranting dependence. For instance, a seller's boast of "unmatched excellence" in a product is viewed as opinionated puffing, unlikely to influence purchasing decisions in a way that alters expectations of performance. This perspective aligns with the understanding that s, particularly in competitive markets, anticipate exaggerated language as standard commercial rhetoric, reducing the risk of . Consequently, puffery's non-actionable nature stems from its inability to support claims of or breach, as it neither creates enforceable obligations nor contrasts directly with implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for purpose in contracts. Unlike factual s that can void agreements or trigger remedies, puffery does not imply guarantees of or performance, shielding sellers from liability while preserving the boundary between permissible exaggeration and fraudulent inducement. This doctrine promotes vigorous marketing without undermining against truly deceptive practices.

Historical Development

Origins in Common Law

The concept of puffery emerged in British during the of the , coinciding with the rapid expansion of mass consumerism and the proliferation of practices from around 1840 onward. As markets grew and sellers increasingly relied on promotional language to attract buyers, courts began to grapple with the legal status of exaggerated sales claims, distinguishing them from enforceable representations. This development reflected broader societal shifts toward industrialized , where transitioned from localized salesmanship to widespread printed promotions in newspapers and posters. A foundational case illustrating this distinction was Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. 1 QB 256, where the Court of Appeal addressed whether an advertisement promising £100 to anyone who contracted influenza after using the company's product constituted a binding unilateral or mere puffery. Lord Justice Lindley ruled that the advertisement was not "a mere puff" due to the company's deposit of £1,000 in a to demonstrate sincerity, thereby transforming it into a serious offer rather than boastful . Similarly, Lord Justice Bowen emphasized that such statements were intended to be acted upon, not dismissed as vague proclamations, implicitly setting puffery apart as non-binding when lacking specific commitments. Earlier precedents, such as Beaumont v. Rawlings (1821) and Magennis v. Fallon (1829), had begun to formalize this by treating sellers' hyperbolic claims in auctions and sales as legally inert, non-actionable speech. Under principles, sellers' exaggerated claims were classified as "mere puff," which did not impose contractual obligations on the seller or entitle buyers to remedies for disappointment, largely influenced by the longstanding doctrine of ("let the buyer beware"). This approach positioned the buyer as responsible for verifying quality and value, viewing puffery as a customary, harmless element of trade that encouraged skepticism rather than reliance. Courts and legal scholars of the era, including those citing traditions, reinforced this by requiring clear intent for promises to be enforceable, deeming promotional language presumptively futile. While 19th-century jurists often regarded puffery as innocuous exaggeration aligned with market freedoms, it drew initial critiques from emerging advocates who argued it undermined by shielding deceptive practices. Legal commentary highlighted tensions in distinguishing factual misrepresentations from opinion-based boasts, with some judges expressing discomfort over the doctrine's role in ridiculing as unserious. These early challenges foreshadowed broader debates but did not immediately alter the common law's tolerant stance toward seller puffery.

Evolution in the United States

The puffery doctrine in the United States originated from British principles of and was adopted in early 20th-century American courts, where exaggerated sales claims were viewed as non-binding opinions rather than factual representations. This approach aligned with the era's limited framework, emphasizing buyer responsibility for obvious . The Act of 1914 marked a pivotal shift by creating the FTC to combat unfair methods of competition, including deceptive advertising, yet puffery was largely exempted as non-deceptive, given that courts deemed such statements unlikely to induce reliance by reasonable consumers. Following , a surge in mass advertising during the economic boom of the and prompted courts to delineate puffery more clearly from verifiable claims, amid rising concerns over deception in expanding markets. The of 1946, particularly Section 43(a), expanded federal remedies for by allowing private lawsuits against misleading commercial practices, but reinforced puffery's immunity by classifying general superiority boasts—such as "the best product"—as subjective and non-actionable if unmeasurable. Judicial decisions during this period, including those interpreting the Act, emphasized that puffery served promotional purposes without constituting factual assertions subject to substantiation. By the late , particularly in the , the puffery doctrine evolved further under the influence of truth-in-advertising initiatives and enhanced First Amendment protections for commercial speech, as articulated in rulings that subjected advertising regulations to . Courts increasingly balanced advertisers' expressive freedoms with consumer safeguards, upholding puffery for vague or opinion-based claims while scrutinizing those implying specific attributes. This refinement reflected a broader judicial trend toward protecting non-deceptive promotional language, ensuring it did not cross into misleading territory that could harm competition or public trust.

Federal Trade Commission Guidelines

The (FTC) defines puffery within its framework as subjective claims or obvious exaggerations that are unlikely to be relied upon by reasonable consumers, distinguishing them from actionable deceptive practices. According to the FTC's Policy Statement on , issued in 1983, such claims—often involving opinions on taste, feel, or hyperbolic statements—are generally not pursued as deceptive because ordinary consumers do not take them seriously or interpret them as factual assertions. For instance, subjective endorsements like "the best" or "world's greatest" fall under this category if they lack an objective basis that could mislead. In contrast, objective claims that imply verifiable facts, such as specific performance metrics, must be substantiated with reliable evidence to avoid enforcement. The FTC's enforcement approach prioritizes context and the targeted audience when evaluating claims, ensuring that puffery is assessed based on the overall impression created rather than isolated statements. Puffery, such as slogans like "America's favorite," is typically not challenged because it is viewed as non-factual boasting that reasonable consumers dismiss, but the agency requires rigorous substantiation for any accompanying objective assertions to prevent . Updated FTC guides, including those on compliance, reinforce this by examining how claims interact with the medium and audience expectations, holding advertisers accountable if puffery blurs into misleading implications. The FTC applies the same core puffery exemptions to digital advertising, such as , as to traditional media, while emphasizing the need for clear disclosures and context under the Endorsement Guides (last revised 2023) to avoid unintended deception. This approach aligns with broader enforcement trends, including the 2024 rule banning fake reviews and testimonials, to maintain in digital spaces.

Judicial Interpretations and Case Law

U.S. courts have shaped the doctrine of puffery primarily through interpretations of Section 43(a) of the , which addresses false or misleading commercial . Judicial decisions emphasize that puffery involves subjective, exaggerated statements of —such as general claims of superiority—that reasonable consumers do not rely upon as factual representations, rendering them non-actionable. This distinction protects free speech while allowing regulation of verifiable falsehoods that could deceive the market. A seminal case illustrating puffery's application is Pizza Hut, Inc. v. Papa John's International, Inc., 227 F.3d 489 (5th Cir. 2000), where the court held that slogan "Better Ingredients. Better Pizza" qualified as non-actionable puffery. The 5th Circuit reasoned that the phrase constituted a vague, subjective boast of overall superiority, incapable of empirical proof or disproof, and thus unlikely to mislead reasonable purchasers into altering their buying decisions. In contrast, courts have rejected the puffery defense for specific, testable claims; for instance, in the 1978 FTC proceedings against Jay Norris Corp., the agency found that claims of an "electronic miracle" device were actionable when paired with specific efficacy assertions lacking substantiation, distinguishing them from mere vague exaggerations. Circuit courts have developed varying tests to determine puffery, reflecting nuanced views on consumer reliance and verifiability. The 9th Circuit employs a test focused on whether statements amount to "exaggerated advertising, blustering and boasting upon which no reasonable buyer would rely," as articulated in Southland Sod Farms v. Stover Seed Co., 108 F.3d 1134, 1139 (9th Cir. 1997), prioritizing the inherent subjectivity that precludes reliance. By comparison, the 5th Circuit adopts a stricter approach, assessing whether a claim is a "general claim of superiority over comparable products that is so vague that it can be understood as nothing more than a general claim of superiority" such that no consumer reliance occurs, as reinforced in the Pizza Hut decision. The has influenced puffery doctrine indirectly through its commercial speech jurisprudence, particularly in Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission, 447 U.S. 557 (1980), which established a four-part test for regulating : the speech must concern lawful activity and not be misleading, the asserted governmental interest must be substantial, the regulation must directly advance that interest, and it must be no more extensive than necessary. Under this framework, puffery—as non-misleading opinion—is afforded First Amendment protection, whereas verifiable false claims fail the initial prong and may be restricted without further scrutiny. In the 2020s, courts have applied puffery analyses to digital contexts, including online advertisements, often sustaining defenses where claims remain subjective and non-verifiable. For example, in LG Corp. v. E.S.I. Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2022), the court deemed the claim "world's first" organic LED lighting as puffery due to its vagueness.

Applications and Examples

In Advertising

Puffery plays a significant role in commercial by allowing brands to employ exaggerated, subjective claims that enhance appeal without making verifiable assertions. These statements, often in the form of , are designed to evoke emotion and build rather than convey objective facts. For instance, BMW's longstanding slogan "The ultimate driving machine" exemplifies puffery as a non-verifiable boast that positions the as superior in performance and experience, without specifying measurable attributes like speed or handling. Similarly, M&M's "Melts in your mouth, not in your hands" serves as an illustrative hyperbolic claim emphasizing product convenience through its candy shell, though it borders on a feature description rather than pure opinion. Such puffery appears across various media contexts, including television commercials, print advertisements, and billboards, where visual and exaggeration amplifies allure without relying on . In TV spots, dynamic paired with bold declarations creates memorable narratives that prioritize emotional over substantiation, as seen in campaigns featuring sweeping car chases for luxury vehicles. Print ads and billboards, constrained by space, often distill these boasts into concise phrases that catch the eye amid urban clutter, fostering aspirational associations for passersby. Research indicates that the surrounding media environment influences how consumers interpret these claims, with narrative contexts potentially heightening their persuasive impact compared to factual presentations. The use of puffery in offers benefits such as fostering creativity and capturing consumer attention in competitive markets, enabling brands to differentiate through vivid, engaging that boosts without regulatory for subjective elements. However, it carries risks, particularly when combined with factual elements, as this can blur the line into ; for example, labeling a product as the "best" alongside unsubstantiated performance statistics may mislead reasonable consumers about its superiority, potentially inviting legal challenges under laws.

In Sales and Contracts

In sales and contracts, puffery refers to exaggerated or subjective statements made during negotiations that express the seller's opinion rather than verifiable facts, thereby shielding the seller from liability for misrepresentation or breach of warranty claims. These statements are common in one-on-one sales interactions, where buyers are expected to exercise due diligence rather than rely solely on the seller's enthusiasm. For instance, a used car dealer might describe a vehicle as "the smoothest ride you'll ever have," which courts typically view as non-actionable opinion rather than a factual guarantee of performance. Similarly, in real estate transactions, assertions like "this is the prime location in town" are often deemed puffery, as they involve subjective judgments about desirability that cannot be objectively falsified. Under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), which governs contracts for the sale of goods, puffery plays a key role in distinguishing non-binding opinions from enforceable warranties. Specifically, UCC § 2-313 provides that an express warranty arises only from affirmations of fact or promises that become part of the basis of the bargain, whereas a mere affirmation of the value of the goods or a statement of the seller's opinion does not create such a warranty. This provision codifies the principle that vague commendations, such as a salesperson claiming a product is "top quality," do not impose liability, helping to preserve commercial flexibility while protecting against baseless claims. Puffery also contrasts with implied warranties, such as the warranty of merchantability under UCC § 2-314, which guarantees that goods are fit for their ordinary purpose regardless of promotional language; thus, even if a seller's puffing suggests superior quality, it does not negate or expand these implied protections unless it crosses into factual territory. Courts apply this distinction by examining the specificity of the statement and the context of the sale, as seen in cases like Wiseman v. Wolfe’s Terre Haute Auto Auction, Inc. (1984), where a "road ready" claim was held to form an express warranty due to its specificity as an affirmation of fact, but more vague assertions are typically treated as non-actionable puffery. However, puffery's protection has limitations, particularly in scenarios involving asymmetric where the buyer reasonably relies on the seller's superior , potentially rendering the statement actionable as . In such cases, courts may find liability if the puffing induces detrimental reliance, as the line blurs when subjective praise implies undisclosed facts. For example, in sales, a broker's repeated emphasis on a property's "prime " could become problematic if it conceals known issues like restrictions or environmental hazards that affect the site's viability, leading to claims under or negligent doctrines. This reliance-based analysis is evident in judicial interpretations that prioritize buyer sophistication and the totality of circumstances, ensuring puffery does not excuse deliberate deception in high-stakes negotiations.

Puff Piece

A puff piece is a form of characterized by an article or story that presents a subject—such as a , product, or —in an excessively positive light, often omitting critical or negative aspects to promote or flatter the subject. This type of content typically lacks balance, prioritizing promotional narrative over objective reporting, and may appear in newspapers, magazines, or online media. The term "puff piece" emerged in the mid-20th century within American , evolving from the broader concept of "puffery" in , where exaggerated claims were common, to describe overly complimentary content. By the mid-20th century, it had become a standard critique for fawning coverage, with roots in the English word "puff" denoting empty boasts or inflated praise dating back to the 1560s. In modern media, puff pieces often manifest as or sponsored content, such as branded articles in outlets like or , where promotional material blends seamlessly with features but risks resembling unbiased news. For instance, early examples include glowing profiles of tech startups in business magazines that downplayed operational flaws while highlighting successes. Puff pieces raise significant ethical concerns in journalism, as they undermine the principles of independence and transparency outlined in the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) Code of Ethics, which requires journalists to avoid conflicts of interest and disclose any biases or sponsorships. By presenting promotional content as objective reporting, they can mislead audiences, eroding public trust in media and violating the SPJ's mandate to seek truth and report it with fairness and balance. Critics argue that such pieces prioritize access or commercial interests over accountability, leading to calls for clear labeling in sponsored formats to mitigate deception.

Distinction from False Advertising

Puffery differs fundamentally from in its subjective nature and lack of reliance by reasonable consumers. Puffery consists of exaggerated, opinion-based statements that are not intended as factual representations, such as claims of "the finest " or " product," which cannot be objectively proven true or false. In contrast, involves objective, verifiable assertions that are either literally false or likely to mislead, such as stating a product "cures cancer" without or "lasts twice as long" when unsubstantiated testing shows otherwise. These distinctions ensure that promotional remains permissible while protecting consumers from deception. The legal consequences for are significant and enforceable under federal and state laws, whereas puffery is generally shielded from liability. Violations of the , which prohibits false or misleading descriptions of fact in commercial , can result in court-ordered injunctions to halt the ads, monetary damages including lost profits, and in exceptional cases, recovery of the defendant's profits or attorneys' fees. State unfair and deceptive acts and practices (UDAP) statutes similarly impose penalties like fines and corrective for objective falsehoods. Puffery, however, is protected as non-actionable unless it creates a misleading impression on reasonable consumers, including potentially vulnerable groups who might interpret subjective boasts as guarantees. Gray areas arise when seemingly puffing statements imply verifiable facts, potentially crossing into deceptive territory. For instance, unqualified claims like "number one brand" may be deemed puffery if presented as vague , but if they suggest objective superiority without supporting data—such as evidence—they can be challenged as misleading. The National Advertising Division (NAD) recommends providing qualifiers or disclosures for such claims to avoid implying unsubstantiated facts, emphasizing clarity to maintain the boundary between protected exaggeration and actionable deception. This approach aligns with (FTC) enforcement priorities, which target objective claims lacking substantiation rather than subjective puffery.

References

  1. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/speeches/myths-half-truths-about-deceptive-advertising
  2. https://hbr.org/2010/05/the-power-and-perils-of-puffer
  3. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/false_advertising
  4. https://www.rosenbaumtaylor.com/the-line-between-false-advertising-and-puffery-2/
  5. https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/ftc-policy-statement-regarding-advertising-substantiation
  6. https://natlawreview.com/article/mere-puffery-vs-false-advertising-recent-trends
  7. https://www.nelsonmullins.com/storage/0b874b457301a173bb3e62b39c85b8d2.pdf
  8. https://www.arensonlaw.com/blog/classic-puffery-or-illegal-misrepresentation/
  9. https://legaldictionary.net/puffery/
  10. https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/puffery-laws.html
  11. https://www.upcounsel.com/puffing-business-law
  12. https://www.venable.com/files/Publication/073d0951-9fa6-4977-9e68-4deb21a819d8/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/c245d881-6fd8-434e-b068-52959159e864/Best-Explanation-and-Update-on-Puffery-You-Will-Ever-Read-Antitrust-Summer-2017.pdf
  13. https://www.etymonline.com/word/puffery
  14. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3542&context=faculty_scholarship
  15. https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/410531/831014deceptionstmt.pdf
  16. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/puffing
  17. https://law.siu.edu/_common/documents/law-journal/articles-2012/fall-2012/3-browne.pdf
  18. https://contractslawinaction.law.miami.edu/?page_id=171
  19. https://academic.oup.com/book/44294/chapter/372644387
  20. https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1892/1.html
  21. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1125
  22. https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/advertising-marketing/online-advertising-marketing
  23. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/08/federal-trade-commission-announces-final-rule-banning-fake-reviews-testimonials
  24. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3542&context=faculty_scholarship/1000
  25. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/227/489/615120/
  26. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/1978/07/jay-norris-corp
  27. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/447/557/
  28. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0965254X.2023.2218864
  29. https://www.gauthmath.com/solution/1985894751198596/Define-Puffery-Advertising-claims-that-directly-praise-the-product-with-subjecti
  30. https://carlsonschool.umn.edu/sites/carlsonschool.umn.edu/files/2018-10/JCR_Xu%2520and%2520Wyer%25202010_Puffery%2520in%2520Ads.pdf
  31. https://www.searchenginejournal.com/puffery-brand-reputation-risk/198965/
  32. https://www.healthcarelawinsights.com/2016/08/branding-101-should-puffery-be-avoided-in-healthcare-advertising-2/
  33. https://schorr-law.com/puffing-misrepresentation-difference-real-estate/
  34. https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/2-313
  35. https://law.justia.com/cases/indiana/court-of-appeals/1984/4-883a277-6.html
  36. https://www.wsj.com/articles/puff-piece-from-pastries-to-journalistic-insult-11556131989
  37. https://owad.de/word-show/puff-piece
  38. https://digiday.com/media/wall-street-journals-native-approach-looks-like-puff-piece-nobodys-going-read/
  39. https://www.vox.com/first-person/2018/3/22/17151906/theranos-controversy-fraud-journalism-holmes-fire-alarm-blood
  40. https://www.spj.org/spj-code-of-ethics/
  41. https://www.cjr.org/tow_center_reports/native-ads.php
  42. https://www.bonalaw.com/insights/legal-resources/do-i-have-a-lanham-act-claim-against-my-competitor-for-false-advertising
  43. https://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Article/2024/01/09/When-are-best-claims-puffery-versus-misleading-NAD-weighs-in-on-case-brought-against-Old-Trapper-by-Link-Snacks/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.