Regarding the Apple case, note that Apple's initial defense covered virtually every possible defense in such a case. That wasn't a corporate statement, and inde

Regarding the Apple case, note that Apple's initial defense covered virtually every possible defense in such a case. That wasn't a corporate statement, and indeed another of the defenses was that any claims about the product were fair and accurate. This is just a standard legal tactic to have every option available (including puffery) if the suit moves forward. And for that claim any reasonable judge would have disagreed but they can include it if they want to really pursue it. And that lawsuit was dismissed because the limiting factor were flaws with the AT&T network, not the device. I agree with the overwhelming sentiment of your claim, but at the same time there are consumers who go out of their way to be "mislead" because it can be a profitable venture.