- May 30, 2007
- 1,878
- 2
- 0
[quote user="fr0g"]Just direct claims about something a product can or cannot do, are rightfully against regs...[/quote]
No, such claims are not 'against regs' if they can be substantiated. The ruling we're all discussing obliquely didn't say the products didn't work, it said the advertiser wasn't able to substantiate the claims that they did what it was said they did.
It's not the products that have been 'found out', as so many think, but the advertising of them - there was no independent testing of the efficacy or otherwise of the product in question.
No, such claims are not 'against regs' if they can be substantiated. The ruling we're all discussing obliquely didn't say the products didn't work, it said the advertiser wasn't able to substantiate the claims that they did what it was said they did.
It's not the products that have been 'found out', as so many think, but the advertising of them - there was no independent testing of the efficacy or otherwise of the product in question.