contract-law false-advertising
What defines the extent to which a business can voluntarily lie to its customers?
<p>Businesses' communication is a constant stream of lies:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>on the phone:</p>
<ul>
<li>our menu options have changed</li>
<li>we're experiencing a higher than normal call volume</li>
<li>your call is important to us</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><p>when advertising:</p>
<ul>
<li>the best pizza in town</li>
<li>scientifically proven</li>
<li>lose x pounds in y hours</li>
<li>all natural</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><p>when talking to you:</p>
<ul>
<li>I'll get on it right away</li>
<li>we'll call you right back</li>
<li>we charged you this fee for your convenience</li>
<li>we take x very seriously</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
<p>on the internet it's also endless...</p>
<p>My question is not about the dangerous lies that can have consequences (eat a lemon and you won't get covid), but rather the continuous stream of lies that have been accepted as business as usual.</p>
<p>I can see them used to either:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>steer a customer in a direction and / or state of mind. For example buy this, be patient with us, etc</p>
</li>
<li><p>or to make interactions smoother and avoid confrontation by pretending to care for example.</p>
</li>
</ul>
<p>So what would be the threshold for a lie to be actionable where you could claim a damage? Does it always have to be material damage? or would a waste of time also be valid for example?</p>

<blockquote>
<p>what would be the threshold for a lie to be actionable where you could claim a damage?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>There is no award for &quot;lies&quot; which clearly are inconsequential.</p>
<p>A customer will never make decisions based on whether &quot;<em>menu options have changed</em>&quot; or whether the business is honest on the statement &quot;<em>your call is important to us</em>&quot;. The impact that the duration of these statements have on the customer is negligible at best, since omitting these statements does not improve the company's response time anyway.</p>
<p>The statement &quot;<em>your call is important to us</em>&quot; might not even be a lie. Many companies know that it is in their best interest to gather information from their customers on what to improve, lest customers switch to a competitor or file suit.</p>
<p>The lack of objective standards renders statements such as &quot;<em>best pizza in town</em>&quot; unascertainable. Accordingly, it would be unreasonable for a customer to rely on criteria that are subjective, undefined, unclear, and/or palpably fictitious.</p>
<p>Only statements like &quot;<em>scientifically proven</em>&quot; and &quot;<em>lose x pounds in y hours</em>&quot; might be within scope of consumer protection laws (see also <em>unfair and misleading practices</em>). The assessment of those scenarios requires more detail, including disclaimers and other &quot;small letters&quot; that are --or ought to be-- disclosed no later than the formation of the contract.</p>

<p>Welcome to the world of bullshit.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>what would be the threshold for a lie to be actionable where you could claim a damage? Does it always have to be material damage? or would a waste of time also be valid for example?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>So long as you can <strong>quantify</strong> your damage in dollars/pounds/goats, you can potentially have a case.</p>

<p><a href="/questions/tagged/australia" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;australia&#39;" rel="tag">australia</a></p>
<h2 id="deceptive-or-misleading-conduct-in-trade-or-commerce-illegal-ss9j">Deceptive or misleading conduct in trade or commerce illegal</h2>
<p>This has been interpreted by the courts as conduct that would deceive or mislead a reasonable consumer. It’s also the case that if you are not in “trade or commerce” )e.g. politics) you can say whatever the f#@k you like.</p>
<blockquote>
<ul>
<li>our menu options have changed: is neither deceptive nor misleading if their menu options have changed.</li>
<li>we're experiencing a higher than normal call volume: is also ok providing that they don’t say this more than 50% of the time. More than that a d there are legitimate issues to be raised about what a reasonable person thinks “normal” means.</li>
<li>your call is important to us: self-evidently true. Especially if you attach the adjective “not-very”.</li>
<li>the best pizza in town: advertising “puff” and allowed under the law. A reasonable person does not expect “best X in Y” to be an objectively verifiable claim.</li>
<li>scientifically proven: now we’re getting into the weeds - you better have your studies and they better be published in peer-reviewed journals. <a href="https://www.accc.gov.au/publications/advertising-selling/advertising-and-selling-guide/marketing-claims-that-require-extra-care-premium-and-credence-claims/health-claims-and-other-benefits" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Bullshit</a> won’t wash.</li>
<li>lose x pounds in y hours: ditto.</li>
<li>all natural: no problem there. So long as your product is free on man-made additives.</li>
<li>I'll get on it right away: a reasonable person equates “right away” with “soon” not “immediately”.</li>
<li>we'll call you right back: ditto.</li>
<li>we charged you this fee for your convenience: I have literally never heard this.</li>
<li>we take x very seriously: sure, why wouldn’t they?</li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<p><em>You</em> can’t take action for a breach of this aspect of the Australian Consumer Law but the Australian Competition an Consumer Commission <a href="https://www.accc.gov.au/publications/advertising-selling/advertising-and-selling-guide/avoid-misleading-or-deceptive-claims-or-conduct/misleading-or-deceptive-conduct" rel="nofollow noreferrer">has</a> and does. As do their state and territory counterparts.</p>
