Slashdot Mirror

Yeah but a lawsuit? Obvs I've not read tfa but I'd suggest starting with making a complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority

That's quite a long paragraph for a good system of consumer protection laws! Although the problem sounds like enforcement.

EU countries tend to have an official regulator (either an industry group or the government). The regulator can handle complaints made to them, or perhaps act without a complaint.

I know the UK best, so I'll give two examples.

"Trading Standards" (local government) will challenge businesses with false measurements, inaccurate ingredients on food etc. This can end in court or jail for a wilful or repeat offender. I think they also ensure the minimum "fit for use" periods are upheld -- a TV should last several years, no matter what the manufacturer's warranty said.

The Advertising Standards Authority (industry body) will decide whether a magazine advert is misleading. The result is the advert won't be printed again, and the company responsible will probably get some bad press.

https://www.westminster.gov.uk...

https://www.asa.org.uk/About-A...

it's not illegal to say that homeopathy is bogus, English law might seek to punish such utterances but it does NOT outlaw saying it.

By the way, contrary to the example you gave, the practice of homeopathy in the UK is, in fact, illegal, in light of the fact that there is no evidence to claims of efficacy and the fact that the Advertising Standards Agency has pulled the industry on its claims of same and basically said that they're falsely advertising (tantamount to fraud). Ergo, it's not defamation to say that homeopathy is bogus since the official word is that it in fact is. http://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/...

Back in September 2011, Macworld UK reported that the "iPhone_4_is_the_world's_thinnest_phone,_not_the_Samsung_Galaxy_S_II".
That was because Apple obtained an adjudication_from_the_UK's_Advertising_Standards_Authority that Samsung cannot claim their Galaxy S II (thickness 8.71mm) to be the "slimmest smartphone in the world" and that the iPhone 4 (thickness 9.3mm) should have that exclusive honor as the Galaxy S II has a bulge at the camera that reaches 9.91mm !!!
So, the iPhone 4 Remained_The_Thinnest_Phone_In_The_World and kept being lauded for it..
You're not going to let such a great record be marred by a tiny protrusion now, are you? You're just looking at it wrong..
iPhones are best!.. Just ask Apple!

report false advertising in the UK here
http://www.asa.org.uk/Consumers/How-to-complain.aspx

they are obliged to respond to every complaint so make it count

Without fair use provisions until now?

I do not understand how society could even function if you cannot at least quote with citations someone else without breaking the law.

As others have said, short quotations are OK.

As for the format shifting/ripping thing, everybody just ignores it. In the UK, even the recording industry isn't terminally stupid enough to prosecute people copying a CD they bought onto a MP3 player. However, if you make hardware that rips CDs then be careful how you advertise it (Note: before you start frothing at the mouth too much, these people weren't prosecuted - they were just told by the independent advertising industry watchdog to change their advert, because someone raised a complaint that was petty but legally correct).

If you allow a crime to go unpunished that will be abused.

OK, so lets arrest everybody who's ever made a mix tape/CD or ripped a CD to their iPod (may be OK in the US under 'fair use' law, but it is definitely copyright violation here in the UK*, possibly also in Germany where this story comes from). At a ball park estimate that's about 100% of the population (maybe 99%, but the 1% will probably have sung 'Happy Birthday' in a public place so it doesn't make much difference).

On second thoughts, no, let's not risk the total discredit and collapse of the justice system.

(* Seriously - although even the recording industry in the UK isn't sufficiently batshit insane to try and enforce it, if you build a CD ripper you'd keep quiet about it in your advertising).

Much like HD televisions, the majority of which until quite recently were never used with HD media even when it was available, 4G seems like something that a purchaser either knows what it is at a technical level or they are blissfully unaware of it.

Well, there was a bit of a fuss when TVs started to be sold as "HD Ready" (Example 1 Example 2 - I'm sure there are more where those came from.)

Meanwhile, like many people, I bought a TV with an integrated terrestrial HD tuner about a year before HD broadcasts were due to start in my area. When my local transmitter switched, lo and behold I got HD. I didn't get some excuse along the lines of "well, when we said HD, we didn't mean the sort of HD that was coming in your area."

Likewise, there is much talk of 4G "coming soon" to the UK. Around the time of the iPad launch, there was even talk of 4G arriving later this year (although that's fallen through). Some UK carrier sites talk of 4G coming soon (and, by the way, a quick perusal of the Ofcom website shows that, in the UK context, 4G means "LTE or WiMax" not HSDPA+ etc. as some US carriers are spinning it). So, it would have been quite reasonable to expect that an "iPad with 4G" would work with 4G when it arrived. At the time, the only way you'd know that this was not true is if you'd dug the actual supported frequencies out of the tech specs page and compared them with the proposed UK/EU 4G frequencies - that's not the sort of research you should expect to do when buying a consumer-oriented device.

Apple have since had several rounds of refinement to their small print so its a bit clearer bit, last time I looked, they still didn't come clean and say "this will not work on existing or proposed 4G networks outside of North America".

If Apple were a Mom&Pop company in the US exporting a few units to the EU this would be excusable - but when you have major distribution and retail networks in a country, and produce otherwise fully localized goods for those markets there is no excuse for selling them as "iPad with 4G*" <font size="-2">*doesn't actually do 4G in this country</font>.

Although it might not hurt Apple much, this might set a precident to dissuade other firms from selling stuff as "4G" when it isn't.

(Of course, some blame also applies to the supposedly international - but really US-centric - standards bodies who have let "4G" mean different things in different markets - I could buy my TV with confidence because the UK had got the "Freeview HD" branding sorted out in advance).

The big difference is that in the UK and EU there's an excellent chance that this is illegal. Strange as it may seem, unlike the US we actually require adverts to be somewhat true - and not just by tacking on a timestretched disclaimer sped up to a garble at the end. For example, the Budweiser "Fresh Beer Tastes Better" ad campaign was ultimately sunk because fresh beer does not, in fact, taste better. Although the ASA eventually cleared the advert on the basis that Bud tastes so bad it actually becomes worse as it ages, the damage was done.

I would urge as many of you that summon up the enthusiasm to send a polite email to the Advertising Standards Authority. Since this portion of the Dell website is aimed at UK customers, they must abide by UK laws.

The product hasn't been banned. The wording of an advertisement has. The ASA ruling specifically addressed your point, however concluded that "the overall impression of the ad was such that it encouraged consumers and businesses to copy CDs, vinyl and cassettes" (my emphasis).

Computers aren't advertised to do the things you mention.

"Rip. Mix. Burn. " ???

The product hasn't been banned. The wording of an advertisement has. The ASA ruling specifically addressed your point, however concluded that "the overall impression of the ad was such that it encouraged consumers and businesses to copy CDs, vinyl and cassettes" (my emphasis).

Computers aren't advertised to do the things you mention.

Frankly I suspect the ASA wouldn't give a damn except that there was a complaint which was technically correct by their own rules.

Interesting, they claim "Unlimited internet for 6 months" for £20. The fine print then reads (as per the /. story) "This Booster comes with a fair use policy of 500MB a month.". Comparatively speaking that actually isn't a bad deal, but is quite simply not unlimited - I'm rather tired of this kind of very blatant false advertising; at least the pay monthly plans are upfront about £x for y MB/month.

I've made a complaint to the ASA, and I suggest any other UK residents reading this do the same.

That's what the ASA is for.

Also, [citation needed]

Happy?.

(The result was "The ad must not be broadcast again in its current form.".)

Is it me or do Apple get in trouble in the UK a lot?

More a case of whenever Apple get in trouble it tends to be over-reported. Ads get pulled all the time. Also, its largely driven by how many "members of the public" complain.

Have they really not bothered to hire any UK lawyers?

The ASA is an independent industry regulator enforcing a "code of conduct" so the law doesn't necessarily come in to it.

However, no, I don't think Apple really understands the way advertising works in the UK: a prestige brand like Apple is supposed to give us 40 seconds of entertainment with a "pack shot" at the end. If you make specific claims about the product, people will check (if a cosmetics firm says "8 out of 10 women in our survey said they felt younger looking" then they better have those stats). Knocking the competitor's product really isn't cricket and is fairly rare. I notice that although Apple initially made UK versions of the "I'm a Mac" ads (with a British comedy duo) that didn't last long.

On the other hand, Apple also think that a British keyboard is an American keyboard with the # key replaced by a £ sign. Twits.

This is in the UK/Europe:

http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/

Their website claims they've been around since 1962.

Whenever you see an ad claiming "unlimited" from an ISP you know limits in the small print, i.e. BT, Talk talk, Virgin, Tiscali etc. Send in a complaint.

http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/how_to_complain/complaints_form/

I can put up with all the 'only £1.99 a day!' and 'from just £49.99' style marketing speak. It's jarring, but at least it's not dishonest.

However I am absolutely sick of hearing 'Unlimited usage! (fair use policy applies equal to 3Gb of data in any 28 day period subject to change)

I'm happy to pay for a 3Gb per month limit. I'd be delighted with an unlimited usage package. But I am fed up with providers advertising 'unlimited', when it is is clearly, unequivocally, NOT unlimited!

I'd urge any UK readers that agree to generate a gentle trickle of complaints to the Advertising Standards Agency and the Office of Communications.

The Advertising Standards Authority is the independent body set up by the advertising industry to police the rules laid down in the advertising codes. The strength of the self-regulatory system lies in both the independence of the ASA and the support and commitment of the advertising industry,

source: http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/about/

Makes it a far more powerful judgement: "Guys, we are in the business of twisting truths all day every day but that's a step too far".

Britain's Advertising Standards Authority also forbids advertising related to the occult. Coincidence? I think not.

From the code:
(2) For these purposes, 'the occult' includes, for example, invocation of spirits, tarot and attempts to contact the dead or demons. (No, I'm not making that up; see the pdf, section 10.3.)

That's all the proof I need.

Britain's Advertising Standards Authority also forbids advertising related to the occult. Coincidence? I think not.

From the code:
(2) For these purposes, 'the occult' includes, for example, invocation of spirits, tarot and attempts to contact the dead or demons. (No, I'm not making that up; see the pdf, section 10.3.)

That's all the proof I need.

Gov't says "stop bsing in your ads."

The non-sequitur is in the fact that it wasn't the government that asked Apple to stop; it was the Advertising Standards Authority. From their web site: "The Advertising Standards Authority is the independent body set up by the advertising industry to police the rules laid down in the advertising codes." There is no government involvement.

Firstly, it wasn't the government that deemed the advert misleading as the headline and summary suggests. The ASA are an independent body. Secondly, we've tried approaching Ofcom about the use of the word unlimited here in the UK and got nowhere. A petition was also started to get the government to do something about it but they don't want to get involved either, so it isn't just your government that doesn't give a rats ass...

From TFS:

"Apple has been running an iPhone ad saying 'all parts of the internet are on the iPhone', but it had to be withdrawn after Britain's Advertising Standards Authority ruled that it gave 'a misleading impression of the internet capabilities of the iPhone' because the iPhone cannot access Flash or Java â" features that are essential to some websites. This raises an interesting issue of where do you draw the line between essential and non-essential features of websites. What should the web look like? Should government authorities be the ones making that decision?"

From TFA:

"You never know which part of the internet you'll need. The do you need sun cream part? The what's the quickest way to the airport part? The what about an ocean view room part? Or the can you really afford this part? Which is why all the parts of the internet are on the iPhone".

Emphasis mine.

According to the adjudication, Apple said "Which is why all the parts of the internet are on the iPhone"

...independent body set up by the advertising industry to police the rules laid down in the advertising codes.

Media owners agree not to show adverts deemed misleeding, offensive etc by this body which is how they enforce their decisions. You'll find this distinction metioned elsewhere amongst the comments but /. noise will make it harder to find soon enough.

It's right there in the summary. We have the Advertising Standards Authority.

The Advertising Standards Authority is an independent advertising industry body; it is not government funded, and is not a 'government authority'.

The Advertising Standards Authority is the independent body set up by the advertising industry to police the rules laid down in the advertising codes. The strength of the self-regulatory system lies in both the independence of the ASA and the support and commitment of the advertising industry...

Source:http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/about/

check their site on the wayback machine, they appear to had no qualms about (illegally) stuffing their meta tags full of competitors trademarks over the years, though they've recently stopped that (illegal) practice.

oh, and whilst we're talking about the illegal practices of this rotten company, what about advertising non-existent prices or spamming customers with indecent messages

The British advertising authority think it's ok to advertise as Unlimited as long as they have the 'fair use' policy, or cap in the small print.

So in the UK unlimited no longer means unlimited. Excellent work, no?

http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications/Public/TF_ADJ_42732.htm

In the UK the Advertising Standards Authority governs advertising and, amongst other things, insists that it not be misleading.

If we can firm up the paid-for-by-M$ link that we can take M$ to task for breaking the rules. Can anyone prove the link ?

I made a complaint, if some other British people could then it might help them notice, you can complain online. The article was Thursday, 7th December. Here is the online complaint form:

http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/how_to_complain/complain ts_form/

If anyone knows the page number, or better, even has a copy of the ad then that would be really god.

this guy simply recovered all the data that this Adware Browser was supposed to of deleted using simple file recovery software, as this Browzar company is based in the UK you can stop him/his company via your local trading standards and complaining directly to the ASA for false and deceptive advertising

Trelayne, I'm not talking about vegetarianism. Vegetarianism is great for health, environmental, spiritual and human-rights reasons. I'm talking about the lies PETA spreads about the animal research. Animal research is absolutely necessary. I felt that since PCRM's anti-research anti-science propaganda was being touted as fact with regard to animal research, people reading this thread would appreciate seeing the other side, the science side.

and as for:
What relevance is who the messenger is or who its affiliates are?

It always matters. You must always consider the source of the information you are receiving, what their motivations are for supplying the information and what information it would be in their best interest to twist, or leave out entirely. It's PCRM and PETA that rely on shock value.

You want unbiased, you aren't going to get it. But to get close, check out the UK Advertising Standards Authority. The ASA is an independent agency in the UK that enforces honesty in advertising. They review one of PETA recent flyers in the UK http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications/non_broadc ast/Adjudication+Details.htm?Adjudication_id=41068

I was one of the people responsible for the UK's PCWorld having to remove their advert for a Centrino laptop that promised "the internet wherever you are"

http://www.proweb.co.uk/~matt/asa_pcworld_haha.tif

It is in our hands as knowledgable people to notice such rip-offs and report them :

http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/

There was a sofa store that was sued for putting up a poster claiming themselves to be "sofa-king-good".

Unlike their English counterparts, who have the benefit of a very good Advertising Standards Authority, and their local authority's Trading Standards office, American consumers are left high-and-dry because 'the market' has to be allowed to operate without government interference. The fact that millions of customers get screwed is totally lost on them.

If KFC advertises a mini chicken sandwich, for example, and it looks much bigger on the poster than it is in real life, the ASA will ban the misleading ad in England. As the whole mail-in rebate scam shows, American consumers get NO protections whatsoever. Welcome to the land of free enterprise.

Maybe because they can read?

9th June 2004: 3 complaints, 1 upheld
19th December 2001: 1 complaint, not upheld
10th March 1999: 1 complaint, not upheld

- proton

Maybe because they can read?

9th June 2004: 3 complaints, 1 upheld
19th December 2001: 1 complaint, not upheld
10th March 1999: 1 complaint, not upheld

- proton

Maybe because they can read?

9th June 2004: 3 complaints, 1 upheld
19th December 2001: 1 complaint, not upheld
10th March 1999: 1 complaint, not upheld

- proton

I don't see how you can claim that there's only one case when there's actually three.

The UK's ASA is a government sponsored body that has the power to levy fines and issue orders that specific advertisements not be used in future.

Sigh. No, the ASA is an industry body whose sanctions basically amount to loudly saying that what you're doing is misleading, and by members possibly punishing a violator by refusing to do business with them. It's all clearly there on their own webpage.

Who They Are
Sanctions

The UK's ASA is a government sponsored body that has the power to levy fines and issue orders that specific advertisements not be used in future.

Sigh. No, the ASA is an industry body whose sanctions basically amount to loudly saying that what you're doing is misleading, and by members possibly punishing a violator by refusing to do business with them. It's all clearly there on their own webpage.

Who They Are
Sanctions

Incidentally, the ASA is one of Britain's better agencies. It seems to have - some - real power, and doesn't seem to abuse it.

The ASA is the industries own self-regulating group, and its "real power" is basically a loud voice. Self-regulating groups are usually setup with the intent of keeping the government out by implying that the industry needs no external control.

http://www.asa.org.uk/index.asp

no karma required
from http://www.asa.org.uk/ [ironically running on IIS with .asp]
-- - - - - -

Microsoft Ltd

Microsoft Campus
Thames Valley Park
Reading
Berkshire
RG6 1WG

Date: 25th August 2004

Media: Magazine

Sector: Computers and telecommunications

Agency: McCann Erickson

Public Complaints From: Liverpool, Surrey, Wiltshire
Complaint:
Objections to a specialist magazine advertisement, for a computer operating system, that was headed "WEIGHING THE COST OF LINUX VS. WINDOWS? LET'S REVIEW THE FACTS." A graph compared the cost (US$) per Megabit per second of "One Linux image running on two z900 mainframe CPUs" with "One Windows Server 2003 image running on two 900 MHz Intel Xeon CPUs". Underneath it stated "Linux was found to be over 10 times more expensive than Windows? Serverâ 2003 in a recent study ⦠audited by leading independent research analyst META Group, measured costs of Linux running on IBM's z900 mainframe for Windows-comparable functions of file serving and Web serving. The results showed that IBM z900 mainframe running Linux is much less capable and vastly more expensive than Windows Server 2003 as a platform for server consolidation.* To get the full study and other third-party findings, visit Microsoft.com/uk/getthefacts." The asterisk linked to a footnote that stated "Results may vary outside the United States â¦". The complainants challenged whether the comparison was misleading, because the operating systems were run on different hardware.

Codes Section: 3.1, 7.1, 18.1, 18.2, 18.3 (Ed 11)
Adjudication:

Complaints upheld
The advertisers said they intended the advertisement to compare competing file-serving set-ups that met the same needs and were intended for the same purposes. They said they had prepared the advertisement in response to an advertising campaign by IBM in which Linux running on an IBM mainframe was tested for file serving and web serving. They said their advertisement was based on results from a benchmark study and the advertisement informed the public of the results from that study about the relative performance and cost of one Linux image running on IBM's z900 mainframe CPUs and Windows Server 2003 image running on two 900MHz Xeon CPUs. The advertisers said the benchmark study was a network load performance test that was neither hardware specific nor operating system specific; they said the fact that the hardware and operating systems were different was irrelevant. They pointed out that the client PC did not determine the server used and that the server workloads were the same and were functionally equivalent. The advertisers explained that each server was tested to deal with increasing numbers of functions from client PCs. They said they took measurements from the client PCs to assess how fast the server would respond. They asserted that the study was audited by Meta, an independent consultancy firm, who reported that the study was a fair comparison.

The Authority noted the advertisers intended the advertisement to compare competing file serving set-ups that met the same needs and had the same function. It noted the study was audited and was a fair comparison of the operating systems on different hardware. The Authority considered, however, that because the advertisement stated " ⦠WEIGHING THE COST OF LINUX VS. WINDOWS ⦠Linux was found to be over 10 times more expensive than Windows ⦠" it implied the comparison was between Linux and Windows operating systems only, and not about the performance of operating systems on different hardware. It took expert advice. It understood that the study measured the cost of Linux, running on IBM's z900 mainframe, to a Windows Server 2003 image, running on 900 MHz Intel Xeon CPUs, and was therefore a comparison that demonstrated the price and performance between IBM zSeries hardware and Intel Xeon CPUs. It understood that the pri

Here's a link to the adjudication at the Advertising Standards Authority.

This is the same agency that has nailed Apple to the wall several times in the past.

Here's a link to the adjudication at the Advertising Standards Authority.

This is the same agency that has nailed Apple to the wall several times in the past.

Guys, lets do our bit to bring this to an end, SCO have issued a challenge, it should not go unanswered.

You can try complaining to the Advertisement Standards Authority, specially if you have received one of the now infamous SCO emails.

Even if you have not I am sure they are your best bet to find out what to do about this.

To other people in Europe: don't be lazy, there are similar institutions in your country to which you can complain.

SCO is most probably doing false advertisment, untruthful or unproved ststements (most likely all of the above), if they insinuate they want money from you please, don't just let it pass knowing is all hot air, do something about it.

It is the guys that are actually being contacted that have the most power to do something about this...

Comparative advertising is legal in the UK. But ads almost never stick to verifiable facts (as required), so we end up with "Brand X" or "Other Leading Brands" to avoid encouraging a competitor to make a complaint.