Home Enforcement

Enforcement

Prevention Disability Fraud Overview

Prevention Disability Fraud Overview

The prevention of instances of false advertising primarily results from the penalties that are enforced against instances of false advertising, even though false advertising law in general is focused on prevention, as opposed to punishment. This is because the primary way in which it serves such a function is by working to bring perpetrators into court for civil chargesFederal Trade Commission 

In a way, the primary source of prevention for false advertising is actually these competitive lawsuits, as no company wants to lose such a lawsuit to its competitors, thereby discrediting itself, giving its competitor more integrity in the eyes of the consumers, and often losing money to pay a fine or damages to its competitor.

This type of false advertising law suit crops up much more often than one might think, as one company sues another for a supposedly damaging portrayal of its own products. Many companies are very wary of such false advertising lawsuits, and therefore take the necessary steps to avoid perpetrating any acts that could be even remotely construed as false advertising of this nature.

Generally speaking, there are only three possible remedies to be sought in a false advertising case, all of which would act as major deterrents for using false advertising, especially because these remedies would often likely have to be paid from one company to a competitor. The first remedy is an injunction relief, which will only be granted if the plaintiff can both prove the presence of deception and that irreparable harm was inflicted as a result of that deception.

This is especially easy to prove if any advertisement specifically mentions another company or another company's product by name, thereby leading to the court ordering that the advertiser cease such advertisements immediately. This will normally cost the advertiser a great deal of money, and will also likely be publicized in some fashion, making the company lose face, as well. Contact a fraud lawyer to consult your case.

The second remedy to be sought is corrective advertising, under which the court rules that a corrective advertising campaign must be undertaken to undo the damage wrought by the original false advertising campaign.

This corrective campaign would either need to be undertaken directly by the company perpetrating the false advertising campaign, or that company will need to give money in damages to the plaintiff, so that the plaintiff may perform such a corrective advertising campaign itself. Either way, the perpetrator of the false advertising campaign will have to spend great sums of money on undoing its earlier marketing campaign, and will again lose face.

The third remedy would be outright damages, taking the form of money given from the defendant to the plaintiff. Such damages are normally given in order to restore any profits that the plaintiff has clearly lost as a result of the defendant's false advertising campaign.

Regardless of the exact nature of the remedy pursued, the fact remains that false advertising is prevented primarily by the possible penalties that a company might incur as a result of any given false advertising campaign. The false advertising laws do not prevent false advertising through criminal charges, but the civil charges of false advertising are more than enough of a deterrent, regardless.

Enforcement Overview

Enforcement Overview

The only way to prevent false advertising from cropping up is to enforce the penalties imposed to punish perpetrators. But these penalties differ from the penalties surrounding many other types of fraud
 
 
The Federal Trade Commission was established in an effort to have a regulatory organization, the sole purpose of which would be to protect consumers from fraudulent acts. This includes protecting consumers from false advertising by investigating cases of false advertising and prosecuting the perpetrators. The FTC does not pursue such cases with an intent to press criminal charges, but instead it seeks to pursue a civil court case.
 
 
Such cases specifically focus on remedying an unjust situation as opposed to punishing the parties involved. This reflects one of the most important qualities of the FTC: its role is to protect consumers, not to punish falsely advertising companies.
 
 
The FTC's two primary criteria for determining whether a given case deserves prosecution are (1) whether or not the false advertising was deceptive, and (2) whether or not the false advertising was unfair. The difference between these two cases is that a deceptive piece of false advertising misleads the consumer in a significant way, while the unfair piece of false advertising damages the consumer in a significant way. It is possible for a given instance of false advertising to fall under the purview of both possibilities. To find out more about the FTC and its role in stopping false advertising, follow the link.
 
 
Most of the charges involved in a false advertising case are not criminal, as criminal charges are used to prosecute only cases of a significantly more injurious nature than most false advertising cases. The FTC levels charges of false advertising against perpetrators who create advertising that falls into either or both of the FTC's two main categories of false advertising, which are "deceptive" advertising and "unfair" advertising. But these charges are civil, and are most often focused on obtaining a court-enforced injunction against such advertising, without seeking any kind of monetary fine. Civil class action lawsuits represent another type of false advertising lawsuit.
 
 
The charges of such a class action lawsuit will be similarly civil, but can often focus significantly more on monetary damages, in order to provide some form of remuneration for deceiving all the plaintiffs of the class action lawsuit. These lawsuits are moderately rare, however, if only because it is difficult to assemble enough such plaintiffs to make such a lawsuit work.
 
 
Prevention
 
 
The prevention of false advertising relies primarily upon deterrence, as well as upon the FTC's enforcement of its policies against false advertising. The FTC attempts to quickly pounce on and end any instances of false advertising which fall into its purview, and will often make sure that some form of agreement is signed by the perpetrator, ensuring that the perpetrator will commit no further acts of false advertising.
 
 
But even more often than this, a given company will sue another company for false advertising, because the defendant makes some false claim about the efficacy of its product, or makes a false claim about the efficacy of the plaintiff's product, or even defames or insults the plaintiff's product or company in some significant way. Companies suing each other for false advertisement stands as one of the primary deterrents to false advertising, as losing such a case is undoubtedly damaging for the defendant.
 
 
A losing defendant will likely be required to pay some kind of compensation to the plaintiff, and will also likely at the very least have to retract the entire false ad campaign, costing that company a tremendous amount of money. Furthermore, the very presence of the lawsuit will likely do much to hurt the credibility of the defendant company. To find out more about how the prevention of false advertising is brought about by the deterrence posed by other companies, follow the link.