# data[].attributes.body
Turbo Tax ads seems to say that everyone can use it for free, but one users signed in, they discovered they were not eligible for the free version and were automatically upgraded to the paid Turbo Tax.

The were issued a cease and desist order and had to pay $141 million back to customers across the US

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
FTC sues Intuit to stop misleading ‘free’ TurboTax filing ads

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The consumer protection agency said millions of consumers cannot actually use the free tax-prep software option because they are ineligible for it.

# data[].attributes.body
Dannon falsely advertised its Activia yogurt as “clinically proven” to aid digestion, using a made-up probiotic name to boost credibility. However, the scientific evidence didn’t support their claims. In 2010, the FTC fined them $21 million, and they had to change their advertising. They also faced a class-action lawsuit and refunded misled customers.

# data[].attributes.body
AT&T made an unlimited plan that made it seem like you had unlimited data with no drawbacks. The drawbacks were that once you used a certain amount of data I would start to slow down. this shows that it was unlimited data, but with slow data. AT&T payed 60 Million by FTC.

Nolen Barke

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
6 Misleading Advertising Examples: DON’T make these mistakes! - MonetizeMore

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Misleading advertising refers to any ad that can deceive consumers by showing false data, exaggerating product benefits, or omitting details on the product.

# data[].attributes.body
H&M was exposed for lying to customers through a scorecard system that falsely advertised the benefits of its products.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A recent exposé on fast-fashion retailer H&M alleges that the company's environmental promise is undermined by greenwashing.

H&M was using a scorecard system to inform customers about the environmental soundness of each product, but a report by claims that more than half of the scorecards portrayed products as being better for the environment than they actually were. The report also found some instances in which H&M's scorecards allegedly gave information about the sustainability of a product that was completely opposite from the truth.

H&M has removed the scorecards in the wake of Quartz' s report. The scorecards were created based on the Higg Material Sustainability Index (MSI) by the Sustainable Apparel Coalition (SAC). The trade group has paused the use of the consumer-facing transparency scorecards in response to a complaint by the Norwegian Consumer Authority and is reassessing their methodology. (It has not paused the full use of the Higg MSI.)

A watchdog group found that the scorecards use only averages of the environmental impact of types of textile, rather than giving the full environmental impact of the manufacture and sale of a particular finished piece of clothing, reported.

H&M's transgressions may go beyond that, though, with some of the product information shown on Quartz mixing up data - touting products that used 30 percent more water as using 30 percent less water, contradicting the SAC version of the scorecard.

For many of the experts on the RetailWire BrainTrust in an online discussion last week, the issue at H&M appeared to be part of a longstanding, alarming trend.

"Retailers have been greenwashing for years," wrote Paula Rosenblum, co-founder of RSR Research. "At least a decade, maybe more. They often mask cost-savings initiatives with 'green ones.' The answer is simple. Get real."

PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA: FEBRUARY 28, 2019: An H&M store in Palm Springs, California. (Photo by ... [+]
Getty Images

And the BrainTrust did not see retailers who fudge the numbers on environmental matters getting off easy.

"While the financial calculation of merely greenwashing away environmental issues may seem acceptable, this is a real threat to the long term success of companies like H&M who target a younger consumer," wrote Mark Ryski, CEO of HeadCount Corporation. "I believe that H&M has already sustained brand damage as a result of their past greenwashing activities."

"There is nothing worse for a brand than breaking the brand promise," wrote Lucille DeHart, principal at MKT Marketing Services/Columbus Consulting. "Claiming to be 'green' is not enough today, consumers are savvy and will demand transparency."

The fast-fashion industry has begun to make changes to its model in response to a perceived emerging customer focus on environmental and sustainability concerns. BrainTrust members had some advice on how best to make that happen, and avoid charges of greenwashing and the damage that comes with it.

"As retailers race to adhere to ESG practices, they will encounter not only issues with measurement accuracy, but with profit compromise," wrote Ms. DeHart. "The best first step for every manufacturer/retailer is to establish a more sophisticated end to end supply chain. Having a strong planning, merchandising and allocation system will better ensure that the right amount of products get made and go to the right places to the right consumers. Produce less waste upfront."

"Firms should treat sustainability reporting the same as they do their financial reporting," wrote David Spear, senior partner, industry consulting, retail, CPG and hospitality at Teradata. "These data ought to be of high integrity and be able to pass an audit by any third-party accounting firm. Lately there are more firms that are starting to integrate their ESG reporting into their annual financial reports. I expect to see much more of this in the near term. H&M would be well advised to get their house in order or face consumer backlash at the register and on social media."

"The industry cannot rely on trade associations as the arbiters of sustainability or eco-impact scoring," wrote Nikki Baird, vice president of strategy at Aptos. "Huge conflict of interest, in my opinion. If brands want to avoid more of this kind of investigation in the future, they need to engage directly with organizations exclusively focused on reducing environmental impact and increasing the sustainability and reuse of products."

Developments elsewhere in the fast-fashion world have called into question the extent to which customers truly care about the environmental posture of the retailers they patronize. Most notable is the emergence of Chinese fast fashion app Shein as the most searched for apparel app, and most downloaded app, in the U.S. The $800 billion company has been thriving despite drawing the ire of environmentalists and even competitors like .

But Shein's popularity with customers was a moot point for BrainTrust member Ken Morris, managing partner at Cambridge Retail Advisors.

"Shoppers have every right to lie to themselves; fast-fashion retailers shouldn't have the right to lie to everyone else," wrote Mr. Morris. "When corporations lie, they will eventually lose respect, loyalty and business."

And one BrainTrust member pointed out that, when it comes to demonstrating environmental commitment, the proof is in the pudding - not the press release.

"Saying you're 'green' is a little like saying you're a 'cool' brand," wrote Lee Peterson, EVP of thought leadership, marketing at WD Partners. "Don't say it, just do it. We'll be the judges of those two attributes, thank you."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
H&M Case Shows How Greenwashing Breaks Brand Promise

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A recent expose on fast-fashion retailer H&M alleges that the company's environmental promise is undermined by greenwashing.

# data[].attributes.body
H&M was exposed for lying to customers through a scorecard system that falsely advertised the benefits of its products.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A recent exposé on fast-fashion retailer H&M alleges that the company's environmental promise is undermined by greenwashing.

H&M was using a scorecard system to inform customers about the environmental soundness of each product, but a report by claims that more than half of the scorecards portrayed products as being better for the environment than they actually were. The report also found some instances in which H&M's scorecards allegedly gave information about the sustainability of a product that was completely opposite from the truth.

H&M has removed the scorecards in the wake of Quartz' s report. The scorecards were created based on the Higg Material Sustainability Index (MSI) by the Sustainable Apparel Coalition (SAC). The trade group has paused the use of the consumer-facing transparency scorecards in response to a complaint by the Norwegian Consumer Authority and is reassessing their methodology. (It has not paused the full use of the Higg MSI.)

A watchdog group found that the scorecards use only averages of the environmental impact of types of textile, rather than giving the full environmental impact of the manufacture and sale of a particular finished piece of clothing, reported.

H&M's transgressions may go beyond that, though, with some of the product information shown on Quartz mixing up data - touting products that used 30 percent more water as using 30 percent less water, contradicting the SAC version of the scorecard.

For many of the experts on the RetailWire BrainTrust in an online discussion last week, the issue at H&M appeared to be part of a longstanding, alarming trend.

"Retailers have been greenwashing for years," wrote Paula Rosenblum, co-founder of RSR Research. "At least a decade, maybe more. They often mask cost-savings initiatives with 'green ones.' The answer is simple. Get real."

PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA: FEBRUARY 28, 2019: An H&M store in Palm Springs, California. (Photo by ... [+]
Getty Images

And the BrainTrust did not see retailers who fudge the numbers on environmental matters getting off easy.

"While the financial calculation of merely greenwashing away environmental issues may seem acceptable, this is a real threat to the long term success of companies like H&M who target a younger consumer," wrote Mark Ryski, CEO of HeadCount Corporation. "I believe that H&M has already sustained brand damage as a result of their past greenwashing activities."

"There is nothing worse for a brand than breaking the brand promise," wrote Lucille DeHart, principal at MKT Marketing Services/Columbus Consulting. "Claiming to be 'green' is not enough today, consumers are savvy and will demand transparency."

The fast-fashion industry has begun to make changes to its model in response to a perceived emerging customer focus on environmental and sustainability concerns. BrainTrust members had some advice on how best to make that happen, and avoid charges of greenwashing and the damage that comes with it.

"As retailers race to adhere to ESG practices, they will encounter not only issues with measurement accuracy, but with profit compromise," wrote Ms. DeHart. "The best first step for every manufacturer/retailer is to establish a more sophisticated end to end supply chain. Having a strong planning, merchandising and allocation system will better ensure that the right amount of products get made and go to the right places to the right consumers. Produce less waste upfront."

"Firms should treat sustainability reporting the same as they do their financial reporting," wrote David Spear, senior partner, industry consulting, retail, CPG and hospitality at Teradata. "These data ought to be of high integrity and be able to pass an audit by any third-party accounting firm. Lately there are more firms that are starting to integrate their ESG reporting into their annual financial reports. I expect to see much more of this in the near term. H&M would be well advised to get their house in order or face consumer backlash at the register and on social media."

"The industry cannot rely on trade associations as the arbiters of sustainability or eco-impact scoring," wrote Nikki Baird, vice president of strategy at Aptos. "Huge conflict of interest, in my opinion. If brands want to avoid more of this kind of investigation in the future, they need to engage directly with organizations exclusively focused on reducing environmental impact and increasing the sustainability and reuse of products."

Developments elsewhere in the fast-fashion world have called into question the extent to which customers truly care about the environmental posture of the retailers they patronize. Most notable is the emergence of Chinese fast fashion app Shein as the most searched for apparel app, and most downloaded app, in the U.S. The $800 billion company has been thriving despite drawing the ire of environmentalists and even competitors like .

But Shein's popularity with customers was a moot point for BrainTrust member Ken Morris, managing partner at Cambridge Retail Advisors.

"Shoppers have every right to lie to themselves; fast-fashion retailers shouldn't have the right to lie to everyone else," wrote Mr. Morris. "When corporations lie, they will eventually lose respect, loyalty and business."

And one BrainTrust member pointed out that, when it comes to demonstrating environmental commitment, the proof is in the pudding - not the press release.

"Saying you're 'green' is a little like saying you're a 'cool' brand," wrote Lee Peterson, EVP of thought leadership, marketing at WD Partners. "Don't say it, just do it. We'll be the judges of those two attributes, thank you."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
H&M Case Shows How Greenwashing Breaks Brand Promise

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A recent expose on fast-fashion retailer H&M alleges that the company's environmental promise is undermined by greenwashing.

# data[].attributes.headline
Monster sues rival energy drink, "Bang," for false advertising

# data[].attributes.subject
Monster sues rival energy drink, "Bang," for false advertising

# data[].attributes.body
Bang energy drinks advertised that their drinks contained something called "super creatine," claiming that it provided many health benefits. Even claiming that it could cure Alzheimer's and Parkinson's. This compound was found to contain no actual creatine, and all the advertised benefits were false. Monster was awarded nearly 300 million dollars for the customers and sales that Bang stole from them with the false advertising.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Monster Energy wins $293 mln false-advertising verdict against rival Bang

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Monster Energy Co convinced a California jury on Thursday to award it $293 million in damages from rival Bang Energy in a lawsuit alleging that Bang falsely advertised the ingredients and health benefits of its drinks.

# data[].attributes.body
Qantas Airways misled consumers by offering tickets for flights that they were already planning to cancel, and by not telling the ticket holders of that decision. The Australian government ordered them to pay $100 million in penalties, in addition to this, they had to pay $20 million to consumers who purchased tickets that Qantas Airways had cancelled.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Federal Court orders Qantas to pay $100m in penalties for misleading consumers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Qantas has today been ordered by the Federal Court to pay $100m in penalties for misleading consumers by offering and selling tickets for flights it had already decided to cancel, and by failing to promptly tell existing ticketholders of its decision. Qantas also gave an undertaking to the ACCC that it would pay about $20m to affected consumers.

# data[].attributes.body
H&M was sued multiple times for falsely claiming to have environmentally conscience clothing lines. A 2022 investigation discovered that over half of what they claimed to be sustainable was entirely false and were fined for misrepresenting the environmental impact of their goods.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
H&M gets Sued - Greenwashing is taken to Court

# data[].attributes.body
The lawsuit claims that the gummies lack significant health benefits and are mostly sugar. The claim states that the product contains too little acetic acid (the ingredient to provide metabolism, weight loss, or blood sugar management) to even work. The lawsuit accuses Olly of violating California consumer protection laws, including the Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumers' Legal Remedies Act.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Olly Lawsuit Claims Apple Cider Vinegar Gummies Are Falsely Advertised

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A class action lawsuit says Olly apple cider vinegar supplements are misleadingly marketed in that they do not provide the advertised health benefits.

# data[].attributes.body
Red bull got sued because they were assumed to give you a large boost of energy from the slogan red bull gives you wings but they have less caffeine then a cup of coffee. They had to pay 13 million dollars.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
By Emma Brant
Newsbeat reporter

Hey, guess what... Red Bull doesn't "give you wings" after all.

The famous energy drink slogan has been found to be false after a US lawsuit and the company has agreed to compensate customers who bought it in America between 2002 and 2014.

Legal papers specify that no proof of purchase is necessary.

Anyone in the US who bought at least one can, in the last 12 years, could be entitled $10 (£6.17) cash or $15 (£9.26) worth of Red Bull goods.

The false ad lawsuit all started in 2013 by a US consumer, Benjamin Careathers, who believed the company's slogan "Red Bull gives you wings" is dishonest.

He argued the slogan clearly doesn't mean the drink will give you wings but it is generally understood the drink should give a higher energy boost than an average cup of coffee.

But when Careathers found Red Bull had less caffeine than a cup of coffee, he felt there were grounds for a lawsuit.

According to the Red Bull website, One 250ml (8.4 oz) can of Red Bull Energy Drink contains about the same amount of caffeine as a cup of coffee, which is about 80mg.

At hearing a back in August, a judge agreed with him: "Such deceptive conduct and practices mean that [Red Bull's] advertising and marketing is not just 'puffery,' but it instead deceptive and fraudulent and it therefore actionable," the lawsuit stated.

"Even though there is a lack of genuine scientific support for a claim that Red Bull branded energy drinks provide any more benefit to a consumer than a cup of coffee, the Red Bull defendants persistently and pervasively market their product as a superior source of 'energy' worthy of a premium price over a cup of coffee or other sources of caffeine," it continued.

However, Red Bull admits no wrongdoing.

It issued this statement to Bevnet, which is a magazine and website aimed at the beverage industry: "Red Bull settled the lawsuit to avoid the cost and distraction of litigation.

"However, Red Bull maintains that its marketing and labelling have always been truthful and accurate, and denies any and all wrongdoing or liability," the company said, in August.

The compensation payments to customers, expected to cost the company $13m (£8.2m), won't happen for a while though.

The legal process is still pending final court approval of the settlement scheduled to happen in May in 2015.

Those wanting to make a claim have to submit a form before 2 March 2015.

No proof or cash till receipt is needed, just to remember whether the drink was purchased between 1 January 2001 and 3 October 2014.

There are reports that Red Bull has agreed to change its advertising but an internet search in the UK still showed the company's old "Gives You Wings" slogan.

No comment from Red Bull in the UK as yet.

Follow @BBCNewsbeat on Twitter and Radio1Newsbeat on YouTube

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
So Red Bull doesn't actually 'give you wings'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By Emma Brant Newsbeat reporter Hey, guess what... Red Bull doesn't "give you wings" after all. The famous energy drink slogan has been found to be false after a US lawsuit and the company has agreed to compensate customers who bought it in America between 2002 and 2014.

# data[].attributes.body
In 2014, Red Bull settled a lawsuit for $13 Million for false advertising claims that the drink "gives you wings" but also provides superior mental and physical performance. The lawsuit argued that the company misled many consumers, as the product did not provide a greater energy boost than a standard cup of coffee.

# data[].attributes.headline
Wesson Oil's $3 Million False Advertising Settlement

# data[].attributes.subject
Wesson Oil's $3 Million False Advertising Settlement

# data[].attributes.body
The Wesson company is accused of falsely pitching oil made from genetically modified vegetables as "100% natural." Wesson's then-parent company falsely advertised the oil as "100% natural" even though it's now made from genetically modified vegetables. Class members who submit valid claims are eligible for 15 cents per unit of Wesson Oil products they purchased during the class period.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How to Get Money From Wesson Oil’s $3 Million False Advertising Settlement

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The company is accused of falsely pitching oil made from genetically modified vegetables as “100% natural.”

# data[].attributes.body
Skechers agreed to pay $40 Million to settle charges that the company faced for deceiving customers. They claimed the Shape-ups shoes would cause people to lose weight, strengthen and tone their buttocks, legs, and abdominal muscles.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Federal Trade Commission announced that Skechers USA, Inc. has agreed to pay $40 million to settle charges that the company deceived consumers by making unfounded claims that Shape-ups would help people lose weight, and strengthen and tone their buttocks, legs and abdominal muscles.

Besides Shape-ups, Skechers also made deceptive claims about its Resistance Runner, Toners, and Tone-ups shoes, the FTC alleged. Consumers who bought these “toning” shoes will be eligible for refunds either directly from the FTC or through a court-approved class action lawsuit, and can submit a claim here . The settlement with the FTC is part of a broader agreement, also being announced today resolving a multi-state investigation, which was led by the Tennessee and Ohio Attorneys General Offices and included attorneys general from 42 other states and the District of Columbia.

“Skechers’ unfounded claims went beyond stronger and more toned muscles. The company even made claims about weight loss and cardiovascular health,” said David Vladeck, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “The FTC’s message, for Skechers and other national advertisers, is to shape up your substantiation or tone down your claims.”

The settlement with the Manhattan Beach, California-based Skechers is part of the FTC’s ongoing effort to stop overhyped advertising claims, and follows a similar settlement with Reebok International Ltd. last year. The Skechers advertisements challenged by the FTC include:

A Shape-ups ad telling consumers to “Shape Up While You Walk,” and “Get in Shape without Setting Foot in a Gym,” and claiming that the shoes are designed to promote weight loss and tone muscles. The FTC alleges that Skechers made unsupported claims that Shape-ups would provide more weight loss, and more muscle toning and strengthening than regular fitness shoes.

Shape-ups ads with an endorsement from a chiropractor named Dr. Steven Gautreau, who recommended the product based on the results of an “independent” clinical study he conducted that tested the shoes’ benefits compared to those provided by regular fitness shoes. The FTC alleges that this study did not produce the results claimed in the ad, that Skechers failed to disclose that Dr. Gautreau is married to a Skechers marketing executive, and that Skechers paid Dr. Gautreau to conduct the study.

Shape-ups ads featuring celebrities including Kim Kardashian and Brooke Burke. Airing during the 2011 Super Bowl, the Kardashian ad showed her dumping her personal trainer for a pair of Shape-ups. The Burke ad told consumers that the newest way to burn calories and tone and strengthen muscles was to tie their Shape-ups shoe laces.

An ad that claims consumers who wear Resistance Runner shoes will increase “muscle activation” by up to 85 percent for posture-related muscles, 71 percent for one of the muscles in the buttocks, and 68 percent for calf muscles, compared to wearing regular running shoes. The FTC alleges that in citing the study that claimed to back this up, Skechers cherry-picked results and failed to substantiate its ad claims.

Television personality Brooke Burke appeared in
a Shape-ups commercial touting the shoes' beneficial
effects on fitness and appearance.

Skechers was the market leader in the toning footwear category. Industry shoe sales peaked in 2010, with sales close to $1 billion. Shape-up fitness shoes, which Skechers introduced in April 2009, cost consumers about $100 a pair. Resistance Runner, Toners, and Tone-ups became available in mid-2010, and retailed for $60 to $100 a pair.

The FTC complaint charges that Skechers violated federal law by making deceptive advertising claims, including falsely representing that clinical studies backed up the claims.

Under the FTC’s settlement, Skechers is barred from making any of the following claims for its toning shoes unless they are true and backed by scientific evidence:

claims about strengthening;

claims about weight loss; and

claims about any other health or fitness-related benefits from toning shoes, including claims regarding caloric expenditure, calorie burn, blood circulation, aerobic conditioning, muscle tone, and muscle activation.

The settlement also bars Skechers from misrepresenting any tests, studies, or research results regarding toning shoes.

[The FTC Skechers settlement page] gives consumers the basic facts about the Skechers settlement and directs them to file for a refund if they are eligible.

Consumers should carefully evaluate advertising claims for work-out gear and exercise equipment.  For more information see: How's that Work-out Working Out?  Tips on Buying Fitness Gear.

Some of the product claims used in print and web advertising.

The Commission vote authorizing the staff to file the complaint and proposed settlement was 4-0-1. Commissioner Maureen K. Ohlhausen was recorded as not participating. The complaint and proposed settlement were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio Eastern Division on May 16, 2012.

SOCIAL CHATS: FTC staff will answer the public's questions about the settlement online May 16, 2012 from 2:00 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. ET. Follow the @FTC on Twitter and ask questions using the hashtag #FTCbcp. Questions can also be posted to the FTC's Facebook page .

David Vladeck, Director, FTC Bureau of Consumer Protection, announces that Skechers will pay $40 million in consumer refunds to settle FTC charges of deceptive advertising of Shape-ups and other toning shoes at the Federal Trade Commission May 16, 2012.

(Left to Right): Jon Steiger, Director, East Central Region, Larissa Bungo, Assistant Director, East Central Region, and David Vladeck, Director, BCP, answer press questions following the FTC's announcement that Skechers will pay $40 million in consumer refunds at the Federal Trade Commission May 16, 2012.

NOTE:  The Commission files a complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest.  The complaint is not a finding or ruling that the defendant has actually violated the law.  The consent decree is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by the defendant that the law has been violated. Consent decrees have the force of law when approved and signed by the District Court judge.

The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them.  To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357).  The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 2,000 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad.  The FTC’s website provides free information on a variety of consumer topics.  Like the FTC on Facebook, follow us on Twitter, and subscribe to press releases for the latest FTC news and resources.

(FTC File No. 1023069)
(Consumergoods NR)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Skechers Will Pay $40 Million to Settle FTC Charges That It Deceived Consumers with Ads for “Toning Shoes”

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Federal Trade Commission announced that Skechers USA, Inc.

# data[].attributes.body
The lawsuit alleges Kroger and Ralphs violated California Business and Professions Code sections 17200 and 17500 by making false and misleading statements about their products. Bryan Pease, attorney for Animal Outlook, emphasized the legal implications. Animal Outlook is seeking injunctive relief requiring Kroger and Ralphs to either stock products that meet the claims made by their signage or remove the misleading signs entirely. The organization is also requesting corrective advertising to inform consumers that the products in question may not be antibiotic-free or well-raised, along with attorneys’ fees and costs.

# data[].attributes.body
The German car company Volkswagen was found guilty of violating the Clean Air Act. The company advertised their new diesel engines as "Clean Diesel", as well as having a high resale value and being compliant in all 50 states. The FTC then sued Volkswagen and won for $14.7 billion dollars.

# data[].attributes.body
Reebok was charged with false and deceptive advertising which regarded their EasyTone & RunTone shoes. Reebok ads claimed that the shoes strengthened and buttock muscles more than the average shoes, which lacked scientific evidence. Reebok agreed to a $25 million settlement with the FTC to resolve the charges.

# data[].attributes.body
Burger King was sued by 13 people across the US for their burgers being allegedly 35% bigger in their ads rather than in person, as well as the ads containing double the meat. They were suing about their stock size on the ad versus real life. Burger King claimed that these allegations were false while in court. The case moved on and the case was dismissed.

# data[].attributes.body
The ad claims that even "dentist" recommends you to take these types of cigarettes, since it's considered "safer" than other cigarettes. This ad is for people who want to smoke, but are worried about their health.

# data[].attributes.body
In 2015, Volkswagen falsely advertised its diesel vehicles as environmentally friendly, claiming that they met strict emissions standards. The affected vehicles were actually equipped with software that manipulated emissions tests, making them appear cleaner than they actually were. This scandal led to a massive class action lawsuit and significant financial penalties for Volkswagen.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What is Volkswagen accused of?

It's been dubbed the "diesel dupe". In September, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found that many VW cars being sold in America had a "defeat device" - or software - in diesel engines that could detect when they were being tested, changing the performance accordingly to improve results. The German car giant has since admitted cheating emissions tests in the US.

VW has had a major push to sell diesel cars in the US, backed by a huge marketing campaign trumpeting its cars' low emissions. The EPA's findings cover 482,000 cars in the US only, including the VW-manufactured Audi A3, and the VW models Jetta, Beetle, Golf and Passat. But VW has admitted that about 11 million cars worldwide, including eight million in Europe, are fitted with the so-called "defeat device".

The company has also been accused by the EPA of modifying software on the 3 litre diesel engines fitted to some Porsche and Audi as well as VW models. VW has denied the claims, which affect at least 10,000 vehicles.

In November, VW said it had found "irregularities" in tests to measure carbon dioxide emissions levels that could affect about 800,000 cars in Europe - including petrol vehicles. However, in December it said that following investigations, it had established that this only affected about 36,000 of the cars it produces each year.

Full details of how it worked are sketchy, although the EPA has said that the engines had computer software that could sense test scenarios by monitoring speed, engine operation, air pressure and even the position of the steering wheel.

When the cars were operating under controlled laboratory conditions - which typically involve putting them on a stationary test rig - the device appears to have put the vehicle into a sort of safety mode in which the engine ran below normal power and performance. Once on the road, the engines switched out of this test mode.

The result? The engines emitted nitrogen oxide pollutants up to 40 times above what is allowed in the US.

What has been VW's response?

"We've totally screwed up," said VW America boss Michael Horn, while the group's chief executive at the time, Martin Winterkorn, said his company had "broken the trust of our customers and the public". Mr Winterkorn resigned as a direct result of the scandal and was replaced by Matthias Mueller, the former boss of Porsche.

"My most urgent task is to win back trust for the Volkswagen Group - by leaving no stone unturned," Mr Mueller said on taking up his new post.

VW has also launched an internal inquiry.

With VW recalling millions of cars worldwide from early next year, it has set aside €6.7bn (£4.8bn) to cover costs. That resulted in the company posting its first quarterly loss for 15 years of €2.5bn in late October.

But that's unlikely to be the end of the financial impact. The EPA has the power to fine a company up to $37,500 for each vehicle that breaches standards - a maximum fine of about $18bn.

The costs of possible legal action by car owners and shareholders "cannot be estimated at the current time", VW added.

How widespread are VW's problems?

What started in the US has spread to a growing number of countries. The UK, Italy, France, South Korea, Canada and, of course, Germany, have opened investigations. Throughout the world, politicians, regulators and environmental groups are questioning the legitimacy of VW's emissions testing.

VW will recall 8.5 million cars in Europe, including 2.4 million in Germany and 1.2 million in the UK, and 500,000 in the US as a result of the emissions scandal.

No wonder the carmaker's shares have fallen by about a third since the scandal broke.

Will more heads roll?

It's still unclear who knew what and when, although VW must have had a chain of management command that approved fitting cheating devices to its engines, so further departures are likely.

Christian Klingler, a management board member and head of sales and marketing is leaving the company, although VW said this was part of long-term planned structural changes and was not related to recent events.

In 2014, in the US, regulators raised concerns about VW emissions levels, but these were dismissed by the company as "technical issues" and "unexpected" real-world conditions. If executives and managers wilfully misled officials (or their own VW superiors) it's difficult to see them surviving.

Are other carmakers implicated?

That's for the various regulatory and government inquiries to determine. California's Air Resources Board is now looking into other manufacturers' testing results. Ford, BMW and Renault-Nissan have said they did not use "defeat devices", while other firms have either not commented or simply stated that they comply with the law.

The UK trade body for the car industry, the SMMT, said: "The EU operates a fundamentally different system to the US - with all European tests performed in strict conditions as required by EU law and witnessed by a government-appointed independent approval agency."

But it added: "The industry acknowledges that the current test method is outdated and is seeking agreement from the European Commission for a new emissions test that embraces new testing technologies and is more representative of on-road conditions."

Environmental campaigners have long argued that emissions rules are being flouted. "Diesel cars in Europe operate with worse technology on average than the US," said Jos Dings, from the pressure group Transport & Environment. "Our latest report demonstrated that almost 90% of diesel vehicles didn't meet emission limits when they drive on the road. We are talking millions of vehicles."

Car analysts at the financial research firm Bernstein agree that European standards are not as strict as those in the US. However, the analysts said in a report that there was, therefore, "less need to cheat". So, if other European carmakers' results are suspect, Bernstein says the "consequences are likely to be a change in the test cycle rather than legal action and fines".

Certainly is. Over the past decade and more, carmakers have poured a fortune into the production of diesel vehicles - with the support of many governments - believing that they are better for the environment. Latest scientific evidence suggests that's not the case, and there are even moves to limit diesel cars in some cities.

Diesel sales were already slowing, so the VW scandal came at a bad time. "The revelations are likely to lead to a sharp fall in demand for diesel engine cars," said Richard Gane, automotive expert at consultants Vendigital.

"In the US, the diesel car market currently represents around 1% of all new car sales and this is unlikely to increase in the short to medium term.

"However, in Europe the impact could be much more significant, leading to a large tranche of the market switching to petrol engine cars virtually overnight."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The scandal over VW cheating pollution emissions tests in the US is casting a cloud over the whole car industry.

# data[].attributes.body
Link: https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/lawsuit-news/4156-nike-fuelband-false-advertising-class-action-lawsuit/

Summary:

Nike was accused in a class action lawsuit of falsely advertising its Nike+ FuelBand fitness tracker. The product was promoted as being able to accurately track calories burned and physical activity levels. However, consumers claimed the device often gave inaccurate or inconsistent readings and did not perform as advertised. The lawsuit said Nike and Apple misled customers into believing the device had more advanced tracking abilities than it actually did. The case resulted in legal action seeking compensation for affected buyers.

# data[].attributes.body
Vitaminwater

The ads claim that Vitaminwater may give you healthy joints, along with lowering the risk of eye disease and other benefits to your overall health. Lawsuits claim that with 32 grams of sugar per bottle that the sugar took away any health benefits coming from the vitamins in the water. After investigation, the Coca-Cola company agreed to change Vitaminwater labels to not make these claims and Coca-Cola admitted that they falsely advertised this product.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2020/12/16/39-most-outrageous-product-claims-of-all-time/115127274/

https://time.com/4289203/coca-cola-vitamin-water-labels/

\

# data[].attributes.headline
 Red Bull ($13M settlement for "gives you wings")

# data[].attributes.subject
 Red Bull ($13M settlement for "gives you wings")

# data[].attributes.body
In 2014 Red Bull agreed to a $13 million settlement to resolve a class-action lawsuit alleging false advertisement regarding its " red bull gives you wings " slogan and marketing claims. Plaintiffs argued the drink did not provide superior energy benefits compared to coffee. consumers who purchased Red Bull between 2002 and 2014 could claim $10 cash or $15 in products, although the company denied wrongdoing.

# data[].attributes.body
Volkswagen advertised their diesel cars as “clean” and environmentally friendly, saying they had low emissions. However, it was discovered that the company installed software in the cars to cheat emissions tests. In real driving conditions, the cars actually produced way more pollution than allowed. Because of this false advertising, Volkswagen got in serious trouble, had to pay billions of dollars in fines, and compensate customers.