nvidia did much more egregious deceptive marketing well over a decade ago in the GeForce4 MX,
Really? I had one of those cards, what was wrong with it?
No. The idiot chump who made the purchasing decision and bought the card even though it did not have programmable shaders and didn't say it had programmable shaders is the one who did the company real financial damage. The GF4MX never claimed to have programmable shaders. Are you that idiot? Or did the GF4MX just touch you somewhere? Can you show us on this picture of the internet where nVidia touched you?
The GeForce 3 was a new processor core supporting DX8. The Geforce 4 line was marketed as an updated GF3 core supporting DX9, but Nvidia sold warmed over Geforce 2 cores supporting only DX7 labeled as Geforce 4 without making the switch clear - in fact burying any disclosure of what that meant in terms of performance and compatibility.
At launch at retail from what I remember, the posters and pamphlets touted the GF4 cores supporting DX9. The box for the GF4 MX cards didn't contain any information outside the shrink wrap to let a customer know it was really a GF2 with a higher clock. If you advertise 'Buy GF4 for Direct X 9 capability' then your GF4 parts need to deliver that or you're being deceptive. It's not acceptable to require consumers to learn processor architecture to know the marketing material aren't true, rather the marketing mustn't contain out right lies.