Advertising tells us about new products and services, it is very useful, although often annoying. However, there is an advertisement that most shamelessly deceives consumers. Because of this, some companies spend years in court and are forced to pay compensation to those whose dreams and hopes they have destroyed.
Here are the top 10 examples of unfair advertising that cost companies millions of dollars.
10. Luminosity
In January 2016, the creators of the popular brain training application were fined $ 2 million from the US Federal Trade Commission (FTK). According to the commission, the company tricked the players with "unfounded" advertising statements.
Lumos Labs claimed that its application can help to study better at school, prevent age-related memory loss, and even Alzheimer's disease. The advertisement also assured that people who will use Luminosity simulators for more than 10 minutes, three times a week, will be able to reveal their "full potential in all aspects of life."
Jessica Rich, director of the FTC, said: “Lumosity simply did not have scientific evidence of its claims.”
9. Nutella
This delicious chocolate pasta with nuts is very popular among adults and children. However, in 2012, the Italian manufacturer Ferrero - the owner of the Nutella brand - was embroiled in litigation. The reason is the advertising claim that sweet spread is a healthy product, a “healthy breakfast” option for children. This completely contradicted the information printed on the product label. Nutella contains over 20 grams of sugar and 11 grams of fat per serving. In addition, the composition of the treat varies depending on the country in which it was produced.
A lawsuit was filed by a California resident, claiming to be misleading by advertising and giving Nutella paste to her child, unaware that it contains harmful ingredients. Apparently, instead of just reading the label on the paste, she decided to completely trust the advertisement.
As a result, the court ordered Ferrero to pay the plaintiff more than $ 3 million. In addition, individual consumers who bought product cans between 2008 and 2012 had to pay. Since then, Ferrero has changed its strategy and now lists the sugar content in Nutella on the front of the can, trying to be more transparent.
8. Activia
In 2008, Dannon Co, the American division of Danone Corporation, which launches Activia's Probiotic Dairy brand, was accused of false scientific claims about the benefits of its product.
Activia yogurts were touted as being “clinically” and “scientifically” proven to be beneficial to the immune system and improve digestion. At one time in the United States was an advertising campaign Activia, led by actress Jamie Lee Curtis. She claimed Activia yogurt contained special bacterial ingredients. Apparently, their miracle and explains the fact that the price of yogurt was 30% higher than other similar products.
The corporation, as part of the pre-trial settlement, was forced to create a fund in the amount of $ 35 million. Compensation is paid from it (up to $ 100) to all American consumers who apply due to a mismatch between advertising and the product.
7. Airborne
An advertisement for herbal supplements, very popular in the 90s, lured customers with a promise to prevent infection with harmful bacteria and germs, and to avoid common ailments like the flu and the common cold.
However, the problem was that there were no medical studies capable of proving the benefits of Airborne.
As true gentlemen, consumers were invited to simply believe that this dietary supplement is able to protect against pathogenic microorganisms. But the creator of the product was hardly a gentleman who should have taken a word.
After the case of unfair advertising Airborne went to court, it turned out that the miracle drug contained a mixture of minerals, vitamins and herbs. Shortly after these results were made public by the media, Airborne began to change its advertisements. Now they talked about "immune stimulation", and not about the prevention of influenza and the common cold.
In the end, Airborne was forced to pay more than $ 23 million to settle the lawsuit.
6. ExtenZe
ExtenZe creators did not guarantee such sizes as the holder of the largest member in the world, but they assured male clients that their natural dietary supplement would help to lengthen the penis.
Unfortunately, this product is not able to change the anatomy of its consumer. It was just aimed at improving an erection.
ExtenZe has been sued for false advertising. She had to pay a $ 6 million fine and rejoice that the court didn’t do it anymore.
5. Classmates.com
Some of us graduate from high school and prefer to forget about it as a nightmare. But there are many people who with pleasure remember the “wonderful school years” and dream of joining old friends of the past days again. It was on these feelings that Classmates.com startup played, which focused on finding former classmates.
In 2008, Classmates.com was sued for attracting people to a paid subscription. The resource informed its users that their former classmates were looking for them. But in order to "see" them virtually, you first had to pay $ 15 for the premium version of the account. In the end, Classmates.com agreed to pay $ 9.5 million to users, although it refused to plead guilty to any violation of the law.
4. Red Bull
It is unethical to promise people things that are impossible to obtain. For example, declare that the product will give you “wings” and the ability to “fly”. Red Bull, a popular energy drink, did just that, according to its prosecutors.
In 2014, Red Bull maker agreed to pay $ 13 million after a lawsuit alleging that the drink didn’t really “inspire.”
It is unlikely that anyone seriously decided that he could fly like a bird after eating Red Bull. However, the advertising slogan gave reason to believe that after drinking a can of Red Bull a person will receive more energy, his mental activity will increase and his concentration will increase. Alas, no clinical evidence has been presented to confirm all these positive qualities of the drink.
3. Hyundai and Kia
Fuel consumption is a very important factor when choosing a car. Therefore, when a client pays for his new car, he, of course, expects to receive what the automaker promised him.
In the case of Hyundai and its partner Kia Motors, the promises cost millions of dollars.
In 2012, they were convicted of the fact that “on paper” they reduced fuel consumption in some brands of their cars. The Koreans themselves claimed that a random error crept into their calculations and that it was only a 3% understatement of fuel consumption. However, an American court ordered the South Korean auto giant to pay $ 395 million to the owners of 900 thousand cars.
2. Skechers Shape-ups
Skechers has promised that these sneakers will allow owners to improve physical fitness and burn extra calories. But then Skechers further deceived her customers, pointing out in the advertisement that her shoes could even help improve the state of the cardiovascular system. A number of celebrities were attracted to advertise the sneakers, including Brooke Burke and Kim Kardashian.
Well, the US Federal Trade Commission has pretty much spoiled Skechers' cardiovascular system. In the end, the company was forced to pay $ 40 million for its false advertising campaign.
1. Volkswagen
On the first place in the list of companies financially affected by unfair advertising is the largest automaker in the world.
In order to pass government tests on the purity of emissions, the German auto brand installed software in its cars that underestimated data on harmful gases emitted into the air tenfold. In addition, emission cleaners were used to trick testers.
In the period from 2008 to the end of 2015, VW sold from 5 to 11 million cars that were advertised as "environmentally friendly" diesel cars. These included the Golf TD, Beetle TD, Jetta TD, Passat TD and Audi A3 TD.
When a research team from the University of West Virginia discovered a significant excess of exhaust emissions from Volkswagen cars, the US and European authorities initiated a criminal investigation. Volkswagen has allocated $ 18 billion to cover litigation costs in the dieselgate case.
And in 2016, the automaker was awarded the Shnobel Prize with a long wording “for solving the problem of toxicity of automobile exhausts in the atmosphere by automatically turning on exhaust cleaning during testing”.
