copyright fraud
Are there anything misleading about this ads?
<p><a href="https://skylinktvantenna.com/orderint-mod-sh/vsl1.php" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://skylinktvantenna.com/orderint-mod-sh/vsl1.php</a></p>

<p>I removed all tracking links</p>

<p>There is this statement that I believe is fraudulent</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>But how can you watch all this for free? The secret lies behind a law
  that no television operator in the world wants you to know. This
  specifies that they must provide, in addition to the conventional
  signal, a signal per radio. In order not to break the law, all
  operators therefore broadcast this signal.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>It basically said that there is a law that requires all cable TV company to also send broadcast for free via air.</p>

<p>They don't want it but they have too.</p>

<p>And you can get them by using antena.</p>

<p>It sounds a lot like nonsense to me.</p>

<p>For comparison</p>

<p>In my country, most TV are free and most are on air. But that's not because there is any law that requires it. The TV makes money from advertising. Of course, there are paid TV without ads. But those TVs are not available in anyway for free and requires a decoder to watch.</p>

<p>I suspect that is what's actually happening with this "antenae". If that's the case, is this fraud?</p>

<p>What I am mainly interested is whether there are laws that are like what the ads say. Namely that are there actual laws that force cable company to broadcast their shows for free.</p>

<p>The seller is basically selling a normal antenna and behaves as if their product is special.</p>

<p>Your question first asks whether it's fraud, and then asks whether there are in fact such laws. You don't state the jurisdiction, and your question implies that you are somewhere other than the US, so there's really not much we can do to say what laws there are in your jurisdiction. As far as the fraud issue, suppose we assume for the sake of argument that the claim is false. Assuming that your jurisdiction defines "fraud" in manner similar to how the US defines it:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>In the United States, common law generally identifies nine elements needed to establish fraud: (1) a representation of fact; (2) its falsity; (3) its materiality; (4) the representer’s knowledge of its falsity or ignorance of its truth; (5) the representer’s intent that it should be acted upon by the person in the manner reasonably contemplated; (6) the injured party’s ignorance of its falsity; (7) the injured party’s reliance on its truth; (8) the injured party’s right to rely thereon; and (9) the injured party’s consequent and proximate injury.</p>
</blockquote>

<p><a href="https://www.mitchell-attorneys.com/common-law-fraud" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.mitchell-attorneys.com/common-law-fraud</a></p>

<p>You seem to be presenting "The law requires broadcast of the content" as (1). So we need this to be false (2); again, I don't know what your country or its laws are, but for the sake of argument, let's assume that the claim is false. The third condition is its materiality. This means that it must actually be relevant. This would be difficult to prove. Does it really matter whether it's true? Does its falsity affect the value of the product being offered? Similarly, for (5) and (7), in what way would buyers being "acting" or "relying" on this claim? How would a decision whether to purchase something depend on the claim? And there is (9): you would have to show that you actually suffered as a result of the claim being false. </p>

<p>I suppose that if there's a show that you want to watch, and you, when you bought the antennae,  were expecting be able to watch it using the antennae, but it turned out that you weren't able to, then you would have a case. You would have to show that your belief that you would be able to watch it was caused by the defendant's claim, that your belief was a reasonable inference from that claim, that the defendant intended you to believe that, and that you have damages from not being able to watch the show.</p>

<p>The ad includes the text:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The secret lies behind a law that no television operator in the world wants you to know. This specifies that they must provide, in addition to the conventional signal, a signal per radio. In order not to break the law, all operators therefore broadcast this signal.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The key question here, I think, is what is meant by "television operator". The mention of Netflix and Movies on demand earlier in that ad seems to imply that "operator" includes most for-pay cable channels. If that is the meaning, then in the US at least, this is false, there is no such law. There is the US <strong>Digital Television Transition and Public Safety Act of 2005</strong> which required many stations previously broadcasting an analog signal to broadcast digital signals, starting 31 March 2009. Such signals are what this device receives, but that law has no effect on purely cable channels. I don't know of any law that has such an effect.</p>

<p>Reviews say that this device can deliver usable signals for 10-15 channels in major metropolitan areas, such as New York City. The ad seems to imply more than that.</p>

<p>If this ad leads people to believe that they can legally receive purely cable signals for free, and if such a belief is considered to be reasonable. then it might be false advertising or perhaps fraud. But the ad does say:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>it is important to note that there are some channels that are not accessible with this antenna. </p>
</blockquote>

<p>Perhaps that would be considered a sufficient warning by a court or a regulator.</p>

<p>By the way, reviews also say that there are multiple similar products on the market, with similar performance. </p>
