FTC rules OR it's bail before jail so they'd better not fail!

[skeptic]

Although the FTC hasn't investigated or acted on exotic audio cable manufacturers, distributors and retailers, here are some of the rules and guidelines they would likely use if and when they do. They are outlined in various FTC web sites such as; http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/menu-ads.htm

For example, in a letter explaining their policy on deception to Representative John Dingell http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/policystmt/ad-decept.htm they said;

" Some exaggerated claims, however, may be taken seriously by consumers and are actionable. For instance, in rejecting a respondent's argument that use of the words "electronic miracle" to describe a television antenna was puffery, the Commission stated:

Although not insensitive to respondent's concern that the term miracle is commonly used in situations short of changing water into wine, we must conclude that the use of "electronic miracle" in the context of respondent's grossly exaggerated claims would lead consumers to give added credence to the overall suggestion that this device is superior to other types of antennae. Jay Norris, 91 F.T.C. 751, 847 n.20 (1978), aff'd, 598 F.2d 1244 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 980 (1979)."

And on substantiation of claims policy statement; http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/guides/ad3subst.htm

"The reasonable basis doctrine requires that firms have substantiation before disseminating a claim."

Also see; http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/F/...deraltrade.htm

"Under that new definition, the FTC will find a practice deceptive if (1) there is a representation, omission or practice that (2) is likely to mislead consumers acting reasonably under the circumstances, and (3) it is likely to affect the consumer's choice of, or conduct regarding, a product. The first requirement is obvious, and the FTC generally assumes that the last requirement is met. The second requirement, therefore, is the essence of this definition. The issue is not whether an advertising claim is "false." The issue is whether the claim is likely to lead consumers to develop a false belief."

Now where do you think audio cable manufacturers and their agents stand in the legality of their advertising? Any lawyers in the audience?

[woodman]

"Under that new definition, the FTC will find a practice deceptive if (1) there is a representation, omission or practice that (2) is likely to mislead consumers acting reasonably under the circumstances, and (3) it is likely to affect the consumer's choice of, or conduct regarding, a product. The first requirement is obvious, and the FTC generally assumes that the last requirement is met. The second requirement, therefore, is the essence of this definition. The issue is not whether an advertising claim is "false." The issue is whether the claim is likely to lead consumers to develop a false belief."

Now where do you think audio cable manufacturers and their agents stand in the legality of their advertising? Any lawyers in the audience?

Interestingly, we now have a banner ad on this very board from the "BetterCables" company which deftly sidesteps making a sonic claim. It says ... "make your system better" without sayng a word about better-how? Better looking? Neater? Providing a "better than" (your neighbor) feeling?

'twould sure be easily taken by a consumer to mean "better-sounding" but they carefully do not say any such thing. Damned clever, some of these homo sapiens, aren't they?

[skeptic]

Since the primary function of a wire is to transmit an electrical signal from one point to another, the average consumer might reasonably assume that this means it will perform that function better. But given that there is no proof of this, that ad would seem to violate the regulation which is the crux of the law; "The issue is whether the claim is likely to lead consumers to develop a false belief." In other words the belief that this will make an electrical improvement which will make an improvement in the overall peformace of the sound system which is ITS primary function. And of course the other stipulations require prior proof for such claims. I am no lawyer so perhaps a lawyer's point of view is required. OTOH, lawyers are trained to argue every side of every issue with equal force. It is only when they get to be judges that they are able to tell right from wrong.

[rb122]

[QUOTE=skeptic]Since the primary function of a wire is to transmit an electrical signal from one point to another, the average consumer might reasonably assume that this means it will perform that function better. But given that there is no proof of this, that ad would seem to violate the regulation which is the crux of the law; "The issue is whether the claim is likely to lead consumers to develop a false belief." In other words the belief that this will make an electrical improvement which will make an improvement in the overall peformace of the sound system which is ITS primary function.

Who is going to judge whether the belief is false, the folks that measure it and say it couldn't possibly improve the system or the folks that listen to it and claim it does? If someone plugs in their new cable and feel that it does improve things, why would this not make the cable company's claim accurate, at least from an FTC perspective? False advertising means that the company advertised an "if-then" causal relationship between their product and a desired outcome. With cable believers, that causal relationship exists. How could it possibly be disproved?

[Rockwell]

Who is going to judge whether the belief is false, the folks that measure it and say it couldn't possibly improve the system or the folks that listen to it and claim it does? If someone plugs in their new cable and feel that it does improve things, why would this not make the cable company's claim accurate, at least from an FTC perspective? False advertising means that the company advertised an "if-then" causal relationship between their product and a desired outcome. With cable believers, that causal relationship exists. How could it possibly be disproved?

So extanding that logic; a pharmacutical company could sell a sugar pill with an advertised purpose, and because people believe that it is helping feel better, then FTC can do nothing?
Either the wire is doing something real, or it is not.

[okiemax]

So extanding that logic; a pharmacutical company could sell a sugar pill with an advertised purpose, and because people believe that it is helping feel better, then FTC can do nothing?
Either the wire is doing something real, or it is not.

Does the FTC have a say on medicines? I thought it was the FDA. Anyway, the regulations may not be as strict as you think. I'm looking at a box of ginseng tea I just bought, and it says among other things "specially designed to boost mental and physical energy" and "effective for stress related problems." But then there is this disclaimer in smaller print near the bottom of the box: "These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease." Disclaimer notwithstanding, I hope it works.

[rb122]

So extanding that logic; a pharmacutical company could sell a sugar pill with an advertised purpose, and because people believe that it is helping feel better, then FTC can do nothing?
Either the wire is doing something real, or it is not.

I would not extend that logic because I can't elevate a cable to a matter of life or death - or a matter of sickness or health. Extending logic in this manner would be like putting health warnings on paper because of possible paper cuts or on flat shoes that may slip on ice. Cables are a means to enjoyment - a pastime. I see your point but I think you're stretching things well beyond the importance of cables and well beyond why anyone should care if people believe in cable sonics or not.

How would a judge or the FTC be able to determine if the cable is doing something real or not? Who's going to argue what is "real"? Science? Cable sonics are faith based. You might as well have the FTC litigate against churches for advertising the existence of God since science doesn't support that existence. Think of all the people that are being harmed because of this belief! Why do you not attempt to protect them just as passionately? Sure, freedom of religion is protected - but I've often read on this site that cable beliefs are like a religion

I'm not trying to be combative but I would like to ask a question: who cares about cable advertising, cable sonics and why? Cable sonics seems like a harmless belief to me. Maybe I'm missing something.

[mtrycraft]

Any lawyers in the audience?

Yeah, pctower Where are you?

[pctower]

Yeah, pctower Where are you?

I'm here, but by definition (I'm not a judge) I'm incapable of discerning right from wrong, so I'll keep my opinions on the add to myself. Suffice it to say that I'm on record at the old board of saying that I don't believe anyone, including cable companies, should be above the law.

BTW, if skeptic is ever involved in litigation, I wish him luck in finding his notion of an ideal lawyer to represent him - someone who will substitute his own judgment for that of the judge and jury and if he believes skeptic to be in the wrong will find some clever way of ensuring he looses.

It never ceases to amaze me how many people who hate lawyers want those of us who are paid by private citizens to represent them and protect their rights to violate the ethics of our profession which require undivided loyalty to our clients; and, instead, supplant the function of judge and jury by taking on unto ourselves the role of making the decisions that are currently left to the judge and jury.

I grew up believing that one of the great strengths of our country was the limits imbedded in our constitution that prohibit the state from depriving citizens of life, freedom or property without due process administered by an independent judiciary in the form of an adversarial system which charges lawyers on each side with presenting the case in favor of the side they represent as vigorously as possible, subject to the requirements of due process as administered by the judge, with the ultimate decisions made by judge and jury after hearing the evidence and arguments presented by the lawyers on each side.

People like skeptic seem to want to eliminate all that messy due process stuff and simply let private lawyers such as myself make the ultimate decisions of what's right and wrong under our laws. Or maybe he just wants to eliminate lawyers altogether and simply leave it up to the bureaucrats to decide who goes to jail, who is beheaded and who must give up all of his belongings to the almighty, all-knowing state.

Or maybe he's just a blow-hard imbecile.

[spacedeckman]

I like a man with a plan and a bit of forward vision.

You score a big one in my book.

The system isn't broken yet, but it is breaking quickly. Too many people aren't looking for justice, instead a lottery ticket or a way to bully something through that benefits the few at the expense of the many but runs counter to the constitution. You are a REAL lawyer to be sure.

[Crunchyriff]

That is a slam dunk, sir. Very well put.

I think people need to stop and use thier heads for a second. Look at all the marketing done in print, audio, and every other form of media.

The "superiority" of any given product marketed is implied, if not directly worded as such. Either from an "improve your life" angle, or "this product is the BEST" point of view.

It is the highest form of the power of suggestion. Highly lucerative, too.

"Only a Gibson is Good Enough" is one of hundreds of thousands of marketing slogans designed to accomplish one thing: sell you thier product. Period. IS only a Gibson truly good enough? In some minds, yes; in others, not a chance.

"There are those who travel, and those who travel WELL"- Lincoln's big suggestive slogan says that you aren't travelling "well" unless you are in a Lincoln product...being as I think my wife's '01MilleniaS is the cat's meow, I don't agree- I travel well, and that, quickly; but I'm not going to sue over it.

Much if what is 'the best' is highly subjective. "AS a man thinketh, so is he." I could buy GMC one week, and think there is nothing finer, and then next year buy FORD (which, for me is highly improbable) and think the same thing.

I thnk the current trend of litigating these issues is preposterous, shallow, and a threat to the society as we know it. AS has been pointed out already, things are already bad enough.

If people don't take any time to research just a little bit, (especially in the today's Net info at your fingertips) before they buy a product, and just throw the cash down, well it's thier own fault.

Another one of those "oh my stupid decison is sombody else's fault, not mine" issues.

If any litigation should be pondered against ANY particular group, it should be against the politicians who promise one thing to get elected, and then do an about-face after the votes are counted; and against those politicians who were sworn to uphold the Constitution of the US, and since thier stepping into office, having done everything possible to disembowel it.

What a concept.

[skeptic]

Much if what is 'the best' is highly subjective.

I thnk the current trend of litigating these issues is preposterous, shallow, and a threat to the society as we know it. AS has been pointed out already, things are already bad enough.

If people don't take any time to research just a little bit, (especially in the today's Net info at your fingertips) before they buy a product, and just throw the cash down, well it's thier own fault.

Another one of those "oh my stupid decison is sombody else's fault, not mine" issues.

This is a familiar arguement....by those rationalizing the commitment of fraud.

[skeptic]

. Or maybe he just wants to eliminate lawyers altogether and simply leave it up to the bureaucrats to decide who goes to jail, who is beheaded and who must give up all of his belongings to the almighty, all-knowing state.

Actually I wish they would just leave it up to me. I would enjoy playing god. At least for a while.

[Rockwell]

...Or maybe he's just a blow-hard imbecile.

What does your response have to do with skeptic's original post? Are you refering to some other post or just taking the opportunity to slam him? Do you think that cable ads are over the line or not?

[Crunchyriff]

I am NOT rationalizing the commitment of fraud, melad. Not whatsoever.

Nor am I necesarily agreeing with pctowers' suggestion of being a blowhard.

But I DO agree with the meat and potatoes of his post.

Many companies assert that thier design is the best, that thier way/design is the superior way to do things, etc. It's been done for years. Much of this is based on truthful opinon, bias, and sometimes, complete fabrication.

That being said, can you imagine the burden of proof that would fall upon any marketing agencies' shoulders, if they had concretely qualify every single marketing claim made by thier clients, let alone fall on the corporations themselves?
Gasoline
Tires
Home Builders
Computers
Autos
Motorcycles
Asprin

Anything else you can imagine.

LET'S BE REAL: BK and McD's have been claiming for years that thier product is superior to the other's. We all know that both are the nutritional equivalent of crap, with only slightly different tastes. And the consumers love 'em.

Bottom line: People need to grow up and take resposibility for thier own decisions in how they spend thier money. Make educated purchases. Period. Unless it's a rash, spur of the moment decision, the'se no excuse to do otherwise.

[Rockwell]

...
Many companies assert that thier design is the best, that thier way/design is the superior way to do things, etc. It's been done for years. Much of this is based on truthful opinon, bias, and sometimes, complete fabrication.

That being said, can you imagine the burden of proof that would fall upon any marketing agencies' shoulders, if they had concretely qualify every single marketing claim made by thier clients, let alone fall on the corporations themselves?
Gasoline
Tires
Home Builders
Computers
Autos
Motorcycles
Asprin

Anything else you can imagine.

LET'S BE REAL: BK and McD's have been claiming for years that thier product is superior to the other's. We all know that both are the nutritional equivalent of crap, with only slightly different tastes. And the consumers love 'em.

Bottom line: People need to grow up and take resposibility for thier own decisions in how they spend thier money. Make educated purchases. Period. Unless it's a rash, spur of the moment decision, the'se no excuse to do otherwise.

There is a difference between claiming you product is the best, and claiming that your product performs better or will improve some parameter.

Claiming your product is the best in some unspecified way cannot be verified. example: "Our hamburgers are the coolest."

Claiming that you product is the best at something can be verified.
example: "Our hamburgers are the most nutritional and will help you lose weight."

As for the McD and BK analogy: Superior taste could be demonstrated by blind test, but I am not sure either made that claim specifically or would want to. However, it seems that they are marketing their product as some sort of lifestyle choice and with it you are gaining a cachet.

It is up to the consumer to educate themselves, but the cable industry provides zero useful performance information, and perpetuates the myth that cables can increase audio performance. If a consumer didn't stumble upon this message board, where would they get objective information? Certainly not from salesmen or magazines, probably not friends, and not from cable ads either.

[pctower]

What does your response have to do with skeptic's original post? Are you refering to some other post or just taking the opportunity to slam him? Do you think that cable ads are over the line or not?

I'm responding to this:

"I am no lawyer so perhaps a lawyer's point of view is required. OTOH, lawyers are trained to argue every side of every issue with equal force. It is only when they get to be judges that they are able to tell right from wrong."

and a long history of his accusing me of taking both sides of an issue.

I think some cable adds probably violate FTC regulations and some don't.

[skeptic]

I think some cable adds probably violate FTC regulations and some don't.

I think the ones that don't are the ones that never made it into print.

[Hoho]

The hottest place in Hell is reserved for Homines sapientes who use Homo sapiens as the plural.

[spacedeckman]

John Dingell and his attention seeking bretheren "serving us" in government will get some reserved seating as well. But doing this crap is a lot easier than actually doing something good and productive for the country...while not trying to spend us into the poor house.

[woodman]

Up until now, I hadn't bothered to check into the aforementioned ad to see just what they (BetterCables) would have to say about how their cables will make your system "better".

Once I did, I was flabbergasted ... no, make that OUTRAGED!! When you click on the phrase - "Click Here to Make Your System Better", the next screen that appears shows a comparison of two video cables (one of them theirs, of course) showing the same image. The image from their cable looks just fine, while the image from the other cable is right on the brink of being un-watchable! Talk about mis-leading! I'm appalled that anyone would put such a thing in an ad to begin with, but they seem to be not only doing it - they're doing it with a perfectly straight face!

Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh!!!!! Check it out for yourselves.