Comment Re:DAMMIT (Score 1) 420
And I'm quite confident that the lawsuit would've been thrown out if Apple's advertisements said "Sorry, but battery life cannot be guaranteed because equipment wears out, and that's life."
The article in question doesn't do the best job of highlighting the issue of misrepresentation in advertising, but that's what this suit is really about.
There's another response that equates this suit to trying to sue GM over an empty fuel tank. Wouldn't a more appropriate comparison would be suing GM for advertising a car as getting 30 miles to the gallon if a gallon never gets you further than 10 miles.
I'm extremely skeptical of advertisements, and everyone else should be, too. But does the gullibility of consumers mitigate Apple's responsibility to sell products that can back up the claims they make in their advertisements?
IANAL, but if the ad says "Your iPod (or new GM car, or whatever) will make you the envy of all of your friends", that's called puffery, and it's legal even if it doesn't perform as advertised. The reasoning is that it's a highly subjective claim in the first place.
If the ad says "Your iPod (car, whatever) will perform in this or that measurable way", and it does not perform in this or that measurable way, that's false advertising. That's an objective claim and I might have used it to choose the product over others. You're not obligated to believe it's "your fault" if someone gets your money by lying to you.
Telling the difference between puffery and verifiable claims is the responsibility of the consumer. That's life. Convincing people to buy your product without making false claims is the responsibility of the advertiser. I don't see battery life as falling in the grey area.
The article in question doesn't do the best job of highlighting the issue of misrepresentation in advertising, but that's what this suit is really about.
There's another response that equates this suit to trying to sue GM over an empty fuel tank. Wouldn't a more appropriate comparison would be suing GM for advertising a car as getting 30 miles to the gallon if a gallon never gets you further than 10 miles.
I'm extremely skeptical of advertisements, and everyone else should be, too. But does the gullibility of consumers mitigate Apple's responsibility to sell products that can back up the claims they make in their advertisements?
IANAL, but if the ad says "Your iPod (or new GM car, or whatever) will make you the envy of all of your friends", that's called puffery, and it's legal even if it doesn't perform as advertised. The reasoning is that it's a highly subjective claim in the first place.
If the ad says "Your iPod (car, whatever) will perform in this or that measurable way", and it does not perform in this or that measurable way, that's false advertising. That's an objective claim and I might have used it to choose the product over others. You're not obligated to believe it's "your fault" if someone gets your money by lying to you.
Telling the difference between puffery and verifiable claims is the responsibility of the consumer. That's life. Convincing people to buy your product without making false claims is the responsibility of the advertiser. I don't see battery life as falling in the grey area.
