39–7. Deceptive Advertising. Innovative Marketing, Inc. (IMI), sold “scareware”—

Question

39–7. Deceptive Advertising. Innovative Marketing, Inc. (IMI), sold “scareware”—computer security software. IMI’s Internet ads redirected consumers to sites where they were told that a scan of their computers had detected dangerous files—viruses, spyware, and “illegal” pornography. In fact, no scans were conducted. Kristy Ross, an IMI cofounder and vice president, reviewed and edited the ads, and was aware of the many complaints that consumers had made about them. An individual can be held liable under the Federal Trade Commission Act’s prohibition of deceptive acts or practices if the person

participated directly in the deceptive practices or had the authority to control them and

had or should have had knowledge of them.

Were IMI’s ads deceptive? If so, can Ross be held liable? Explain.

Explanation / Answer

Here is the answer to your query,

Deceptive advertising is also know as false advertising, it is a form of adversing which confuse and mislead the user. It also include using an untrue statement about the product to promote it. This can be normally seen while suffering on internet.

for example

1) An advertisement of a tablet contains vitamins and minerals which it does not.

2) An advertisement stating 50% off on the purchase but they don't clearify it, they mislead the customer, After opening the site we get to know that there are lots of terms and conditions on it.

3) This has happened with me lots of times, I use to download the songs and as i click on it a page appear asking for update and then my cell phone continuously vibrates. This means their are lots of virus on that link.

So, IMI's ads were deceptive as the advertiser deliberately mislead the consumer. As above I state what are the deceptive ads so the internet ads of IMI redirected consures to the sites where they detected dangerous files like viruses, spyware and illegal pronography. And the most important thing is the advertiser " Kristy Ross" was aware of this types of advertisement and still she dosn't took any step to stop this fraud.

As we know that an individual can be held liable under the Federal Trade Commision Act's prohibition of deceptive acts or practices if the person participated directly in the deceptive practices or had the authority to control them and have had knowledge about them so, yes "Kristy Ross" can held liable for the deceptive ads of IMI's and the reasons on basis of which she can be held liable are as follow:-

> She is just not an editor of the ads but she was also the cofounder and vice president of the company so to take care of any fraud by the side of firm is her responsbility.

> She was an advertiser and was knowing about the deceptive ads so she was deliberately ignoring the deceptive ads and misleading the consumer.

> The work she was doing was deliberate, it was not an honest mistake.

> She was aware of the complaints made by the consumers and knowing all the facts she was not taking any steps about the deceptive ads or solving the issue of the customer.

So, by the above reasons we can conclude that she was directly participating in the deceptive practices and she had the authority to control it but she didn't. IMI's ads were deceptive and Kristy Ross can held liable for it.

for any further issue regarding this answer, let me know in the comments :-)

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse 3
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.