If you’re looking for some of the biggest misleading advertising examples and cases in recent history, you’re in the right place! We’ve put up a list of 10+ well-known instances for you to learn about Misleading Advertising Examples, how it’s done, its best strategies, and its worst effects.
These instances demonstrate the significance of moral advertising techniques and the necessity of being on the lookout for dishonest strategies in a field where honesty is actually the best policy.
Through the comprehensive list of notable examples provided below, learn about important examples of false advertising and their effects on advertising ethics and legal standards.
Although there haven’t been many instances of fake advertising, deceptive tactics in the field of digital advertising have generally grown in popularity. For instance, it was discovered that 17% of all ad impressions worldwide between April and June 2022 were false.
What is Misleading Advertising?
The use of false or misleading information in traditional or digital marketing to sway consumer behavior in a way they otherwise wouldn’t is known as misleading advertising. Customers may be persuaded to buy products based on false or misleading information by this kind of advertising.
An example of misleading advertising is when false or deceptive advertising takes many different forms to betray the customers into buying, such as leaving out important details about a product or service. It can appear in periodicals, catalogs, websites, and both digital and print ads.
However, this goes beyond simple fabrications or untrue statements. More subtle forms of deception may also be involved, like presenting information in a way that is likely to be misunderstood by the typical consumer, concealing crucial terminology in small print, or making unsupported comparisons.
The most notable instances of deceptive advertising in recent history are listed here.
Curated List of 10+ Biggest Misleading Advertising Examples
1. The Volkswagen: “Clean Diesel” Marketing
Backstory
Volkswagen, a well-known automaker, had serious legal issues because of its deceptive advertising tactics. Its “clean diesel” marketing, which misrepresented some VW and Audi diesel cars as being eco-friendly and emissions-compliant, was the main source of the problem.
Volkswagen’s claims of low-emission, eco-friendly diesel vehicles were exposed by the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) as being predicated on the use of a “defeat device,” which falsified emissions testing to make the vehicles appear to be in compliance with environmental standards when they were not.
Effects
Volkswagen agreed to a deal that included substantial financial compensation for impacted car owners and lessees as a result of this dishonest behavior, which sparked a large false advertising case.
As demonstrated by Volkswagen’s case, deceptive advertising is not only an uncommon but also a significant problem in the industry, underscoring the need for brands to remain truthful and open in their advertising since misleading consumers can have serious legal ramifications, financial losses, and harm to their reputation.
Resolution
- Volkswagen faced severe repercussions, including a record-breaking fine, the FTC’s announcement of a partial settlement that required Volkswagen to reimburse up to $10 billion to the owners and lessees of impacted vehicles,
- Also, a major blow to the company’s reputation damaged consumer confidence and damaged the brand’s reputation around the world.
2. Red Bull: “Red Bull gives you wings.”
Backstory
The well-known energy drink company Red Bull is well-known throughout the world for its memorable tagline, “Red Bull gives you wings.” Through its distinctive marketing techniques and sponsorships of a range of high-energy sports and events, the brand has established a significant market presence.
In one well-known instance, Red Bull was sued in a class action for its promotional claims. Red Bull allegedly deceitfully marketed its energy drinks as providing particular functional benefits, such as enhanced physical performance and reaction time, which convinced customers to pay a premium price for the product, according to the lawsuit brought by Benjamin Careathers, David Wolf, and Miguel Almaraz.
The plaintiffs contended that these assertions lacked scientific support and were misleading.
Effects
Red Bull denied any misconduct or guilt, but in 2014, the firm agreed to pay $13 million to resolve the claim. A $10 cash payout or a $15 Red Bull product coupon was available to impacted customers who had bought a Red Bull product since January 1, 2002, as part of the settlement.
The corporation insisted that the deal was made to avoid the expense and distraction of litigation and that its labeling and marketing had always been honest and truthful.
Resolution
- Even though Red Bull is still a well-known brand, this lawsuit highlighted the need for advertising promises to be more transparent.
- Brands are reminded by the case to carefully evaluate the veracity of their marketing messaging as well as the possible effects on their reputation and customer trust.
3. Kellogg
Backstory
Federal charges were brought against Kellogg Co., a well-known brand in the morning cereal sector, for deceptively promoting the advantages of its Frosted Mini-Wheats cereal. In 2009, Kellogg agreed to settle these complaints, which focused on false advertising claims, according to the FTC.
Effects
According to Kellogg’s nationwide television advertisements, youngsters who eat Frosted Mini-Wheats are around 20% more attentive than those who miss breakfast. But according to the FTC, these assertions were overstated. According to the study the advertisements cited, only roughly half of the kids’ attentiveness improved at all, and only 11% of them noticed the 20% increase the advertisements claimed.
This instance serves as a reminder of how crucial it is for brands to provide reliable evidence to support their advertising claims, particularly when those claims pertain to health advantages. A brand’s reputation might suffer and serious legal repercussions may result from deceptive advertising.
Resolution
- As a result of this case, Kellogg had to modify their marketing plans and emphasize the value of upholding integrity in advertising.
- The sector was also reminded of the possible repercussions of going beyond the bounds of truthful advertising.
4. Johnson & Johnson
Backstory
The multinational corporation Johnson & Johnson is well-known for its extensive line of pharmaceuticals, consumer items, and medical equipment. Johnson’s Baby Powder, a household mainstay for many years, is one of its most recognizable items.
Effects
Johnson & Johnson’s Baby Powder product caused a lot of criticism. The business was accused of marketing its talc-based Baby Powder to particular groups, especially overweight and African-American women. Despite growing doubts about the product’s safety, this tactic was used.
One popular marketing strategy is to target particular demographics. However, it presents ethical questions when it comes to a product that may pose health dangers. Businesses must strike a balance between their marketing plans and their obligation to give truthful product information, particularly when those items have health risks.
Resolution
- Johnson & Johnson was the target of numerous lawsuits alleging that their Shower to Shower and Baby Powder products caused mesothelioma or ovarian cancer.
- Small levels of asbestos were also discovered in the company’s talc goods, according to a Reuters investigation.
- The public and authorities were not informed of this information. Due to the intense public outcry and resulting legal disputes, Johnson & Johnson was forced to stop producing talc-based baby powder after being sued in thousands of cases.
5. L’Oréal
Backstory
Leading the cosmetics sector globally, L’Oréal is renowned for its wide selection of skincare and cosmetics products. By offering high-quality and inventive items to a wide range of customers, the brand has made a significant impact on the global market.
The marketing promises made by L’Oréal for two of their skincare products, Lancôme Génifique and L’Oréal Paris Youth Code, came under fire in 2014.
Effects
These items were advertised by the company as “clinically proven” to “boost genes” and produce “visibly younger skin in just seven days.” The FTC took notice of these audacious health claims and questioned their veracity.
Exaggerated promises on the advantages of products are common in the beauty and skincare sector. However, the precision of the promises regarding genetic improvement and quick, noticeable results made L’Oréal’s case noteworthy. Such claims have the potential to deceive customers, particularly if they are unsupported by science.
Resolution
- According to the FTC’s inquiry, L’Oréal made “false and unsubstantiated” statements.
- L’Oréal USA was consequently prohibited from making any more anti-aging claims in the absence of reliable scientific proof.
- The business might have been fined up to $16,000 for each subsequent infraction, but it was spared a monetary penalty.
6. The misuse of the word “free” by TurboTax
Backstory
By deceiving customers about its “free” tax-filing services, TurboTax’s manufacturer, Intuit, was found to have participated in deceptive advertising by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).
Although TurboTax was advertised as being free for all users, many consumers found they were not eligible and were forced to upgrade to the commercial versions.
Effects
A substantial financial investment resulted from millions of Americans being duped into paying for tax preparation services they thought would be free.
Significant consumer mistrust and scrutiny of Intuit’s business activities resulted from the misleading advertising campaign.
Resolution
- According to a cease-and-desist order filed by the FTC, Intuit must cease its misleading advertising tactics and make explicit disclosures regarding who is eligible for the free service.
- Additionally, the business reached a settlement with the attorneys general of each of the 50 states, agreeing to pay $141 million to consumers nationwide.
- Similar accusations about its allegedly free tax filing services were addressed in this settlement.
- Significant restitution to impacted customers was needed as part of the settlement with the states, even though the FTC ruling did not include a financial penalty.
7. Kubota: Claims Regarding Origin Labeling
Backstory
It was discovered that since at least 2021, Kubota North America, a well-known tractor manufacturer, had been fraudulently labeling thousands of replacement parts for its trailers and agricultural products as “Made in USA.”
Kubota persisted in using false “Made in USA” labels on these parts even though they were completely produced abroad.
Effects
The false labeling may have influenced consumers’ decisions to support domestic businesses by giving them the impression that they were buying products that supported American manufacturing when, in reality, the parts were imported.
Resolution
- Following the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) action against Kubota, a stipulated court order was issued.
- Kubota committed to stop making unqualified “Made in USA” claims unless all or almost all of the ingredients or components are supplied locally, and the final assembly or major processing takes place in the US.
- Kubota also consented to pay the highest civil penalty ever imposed for breaking the Made in USA Labeling Rule, $2 million.
8. The Ticket Scandal at Qantas
Backstory
Over tens of thousands of flights between May 2021 and August 2023, Qantas Airways Limited acknowledged deceiving customers by promoting tickets for flights it had previously chosen to cancel and failing to quickly notify ticket holders of cancellations.
Effects
Customers who based their travel plans on inaccurate flight availability information suffered greatly as a result of the deceptive behavior; Qantas’s reputation suffered greatly and it came under regulatory scrutiny. Many customers experienced financial losses and inconveniences as their vacation, business, and travel plans were disrupted.
Resolution
- In a court-enforceable commitment with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), Qantas committed to paying more than 86,000 impacted consumers almost $20 million.
- In addition to any refunds or other flying arrangements that have already been made, this includes reimbursements of $225 to domestic ticket holders and $450 to international ticket holders.
- Additionally, within 24 hours of the decision to cancel, Qantas stopped selling canceled flights and pledged to swiftly notify consumers of flight cancellations.
- In order to discourage future wrongdoing, Qantas will also pay a recommended $100 million penalty, subject to court approval.
- In order to make sure that consumer protection rules are being followed, they will also improve their compliance procedures and submit to independent audits.
9. Greenwashing at H&M
Backstory
The fast-fashion company H&M came under fire for deceiving consumers by using a grading system that exaggerated the environmental advantages of its goods.
Effects
Customers and environmental organizations criticized H&M for misleading them about the sustainability of the products they bought, which destroyed the company’s reputation among eco-aware consumers.
Resolution
- In response to a complaint by the Norwegian Consumer Authority, H&M donated $500,000 to fashion industry sustainability-related causes and removed the deceptive scorecards
- While the Sustainable Apparel Coalition (SAC), the trade group that created them, paused their use to review their methodology.
10. Airborne: Unsupported Allegations
Backstory
For years, the nutritional supplement company Airborne advertised that its products could “ward off” germs and strengthen the immune system, although no scientific research was ever done to back these claims.
Effects
Customers may have bought the product under false pretenses, expecting immune-boosting advantages that were not scientifically established, because they were misled into thinking that Airborne supplements offered unsubstantiated health benefits.
Resolution
- In response to the Center for Science in the Public Interest’s lawsuit alleging false advertising, Airborne paid out more than $23 million to impacted consumers in a class-action settlement
- Underscoring the brand’s responsibility to support health claims with scientific data and exposing the negative effects of making false health claims in advertising.
- Customers were encouraged to carefully consider product claims and seek objective research to confirm efficacy before making purchases.
11. Robinhood: Not Giving Information
Backstory
Popular trading platform Robinhood misled users about how it made money and did not fully disclose platform risks, especially with regard to payment for order flow, which involves sending orders from customers to trading firms in exchange for payments, potentially creating a conflict of interest.
Effects
Widespread customer unhappiness and questions about the openness of Robinhood’s business methods resulted from the false statements, which also caused the company to come under further regulatory scrutiny and criticism, which damaged its reputation and user confidence.
Resolution
- Robinhood agreed to pay the fine and pledged to enhance its disclosures and business practices to inform better and protect its customers after the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) fined the company.
- $65 million was the total fine for deceiving customers about its revenue sources and failing to disclose the risks of its trading practices.
If you’re into Affiliate Marketing as well then check out 15+ Best High Ticket Affiliate Marketing Niches To Consider in 2024.
What Constitutes a False or Misleading Advertisement?
While legal definitions vary by region, the general idea is consistent with Section 5 of the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act, which forbids “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.”
To put it simply, false advertising is similar to a broken promise: you promise the consumer something in your communication that you cannot deliver on. On the other hand, making an unproven claim about a competitor is another example of false advertising.
False advertising is not the same as “puffery,” which is commonly described as subjective and unverifiable assertions that are regarded as views rather than factual statements, such as a restaurant claiming to have the “Best Burgers in Town.”
Types of Misleading Advertisements:
False advertising comes in many forms, some of which are as follows:
- False Statements
Advertising that exaggerates or makes false claims about the features or advantages of a product.
- Bait-and-Switch
Promoting a product at a discount to draw clients, then after they enter the business, urging them to buy a more costly item.
- Unstated Charges
Failing to disclose extra expenses that customers will have to pay after making their first transaction.
- False Comparisons
Comparing a competitor’s product to one’s own in an inaccurate or deceptive manner.
- Inauthentic Endorsements
Using testimonials or endorsements from individuals who have not used the product or who were compensated to provide unreported favorable reviews.
- A False Statement of Origin
Implies greater quality by making a false claim about a product’s nation or place of manufacture.
- The pricing is incorrect.
Putting up inflated or inaccurate prices to give the impression that discounts are greater than they actually are.
- Absences
Omitting crucial details that can affect a customer’s choice.
- Visual Trickery
Utilizing videos or pictures that are inaccurate representations of the goods.
- Technical or Scientific Statements
Making inflated or baseless claims on a product’s technological or scientific advantages.
How can misleading advertising be avoided?
There are several ways for marketers to avoid the disaster of publishing inaccurate advertising since most of them do not want to mislead consumers.
- Utilize AI Technology to Lower the Error Margin
While humans are still needed, AI proofing and scanning solutions can be far more accurate. Reduce the chance of releasing your product with expensive mistakes due to outdated or unauthorized marketing or product copy.
Create legally acceptable disclaimers based on standards established with your legal team.
- Stay Up to Date on Regulatory Changes
Centralizing your content in brand management software makes this process simple. Built-in tools that track content and collateral allow you to set periodic reviews for live work and distribute updates quickly.
Compliance guidelines are constantly changing, so it’s important to stay up to date on all updates and make sure they’re still applicable to upcoming ads as well as current live content to make sure it’s still within code.
- Avoid Skimping on Approvals
Brand management software takes the hassle out of chasing approvals, but for major conceptual work with large budgets, it’s crucial to get your legal team’s advice before spending hundreds of thousands on production and media only to have your ad pulled on day two.
It’s very tempting to rush content through to meet a deadline, but the consequences of not getting traceable sign-offs from senior management and legal are simply not worth the risk.
- Obtain the Proper Guidance
Getting regular advice from experts in the field is crucial because advertising compliance is not going away—in fact, it will only get more complicated as generative AI becomes more widely used.
Several developers are currently defending themselves against class action lawsuits that claim they violated copyright, publicity, and privacy rights.
It takes time and effort to build long-term relationships, so it’s simply not worth the risk to have them destroyed by a false advertising claim, no matter how innocent. If you’d like to learn more about how brand management software can help you, get in touch with us.
Credibility and trust are two of the most crucial elements that businesses need to draw in and keep customers.
Conclusion:
The most well-known false advertising cases and their resolutions are included in our carefully curated list of the biggest misleading advertising examples of recent history, which also includes the most recent scandals involving major brand names and recent instances of false advertising on social media on some of the largest social media platforms.
We’ve studied everything that you need to know about false, mischievous or misleading advertisements, how to stay away from them, and what their penalties can be. hope you got the info you came for and we wish you the best of luck in your future endeavors
FAQs:
Q. What is an example of a false or misleading representation?
In these cases, courts have discovered deceptive and false representations: a: a producer sold socks that weren’t made of pure cotton but were labeled as “pure cotton”; a store put a label on clothing that displayed a discount price and a higher, crossed-out price. But the clothes had never brought in the extra cash. What is a misleading or false representation?
Q. What is an example of misleading advertising in the UK?
The products appeared to be from a farmhouse supplier due to the ‘Farm’ logo. But in reality, they came from a number of vendors, some of whom were located outside of the UK, which is why the ASA decided that the advertisements were deceptive.
Q. Did someone sue Redbull for False Advertising?
Even while it seems improbable that eating an energy drink could actually give you wings, the plaintiff, Benjamin Careathers, took the situation seriously. The complaint, which was settled in August, argued that Red Bull lacked legitimate scientific proof to back up its claims of superior energy advantages.
Q. What is an example of a manipulative advertisement?
A business is engaging in social pressure, sometimes referred to as peer pressure, when it asserts that the majority of people or experts are utilizing its product. Advertisements frequently state things like “four out of five experts agree” or “millions of satisfied customers” think their product is the greatest because of this.
