4 ms·
This seems like a bit of an over reach no? I've looked up wire fraud in the US and it seems to come with some properly serious penalties: Whoever, having devi
by swarnie_ 7y ago
This seems like a bit of an over reach no?
I've looked up wire fraud in the US and it seems to come with some properly serious penalties:
Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If the violation affects a financial institution, such person shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.[4]
- tptacek 7y agoNo? The use of deception to obtain something of value that would not otherwise be given to you is the literal, legal definition of fraud?
- Mirioron 7y agoSo, where does that leave advertising? The entire purpose of advertising is to get somebody to spend money on a product they otherwise wouldn't have.
- tptacek 7y agoTo be more precise, the elements of fraud include a false statement, made knowingly, upon which someone else reasonably relies, to their detriment. To prosecute, this pattern must not be merely plausibly true but persuasively true in the face of a motivated, skilled defense. That set of circumstances is only rarely true in advertising. It is clearly true here.
- catalogia 7y agoThe advertising industry is hated by many people for exactly the parallels you've perceived.
- empath75 7y agoPeople get sued for false advertising al the time. I feel like people on hacker news are continuously surprised to discover that laws exist and are enforced.
- paulie_a 7y agoAnd when they are enforced they seem to think that laws can be hacked with cutesy little games to a judge.
- skywhopper 7y ago“The use of deception” is key, and it’s true that advertising often crosses the line, and should be prosecuted more often.
- IAmEveryone 7y agoYou going to work also serves the purpose "to get somebody to [give you] money they otherwise wouldn't have". So that definition is obviously too broad, and different from the definition of fraud mentioned above. Advertisement tends to deal in opinions, not facts. And where specific factual claims are made against better knowledge it does constitute fraud, and is occasionally prosecuted. See Volkswagen's emissions claims, for example. Or, just this week, some hand sanitiser got hit by the FDA for claiming protection against Ebola and Coronavirus.
- Retric 7y agoAdvertising has specific legal limits on what is deceptive. You can say ‘worlds best’ because that’s considered a subjective and meaningless statement, but lying about objective facts gets you into hot water. For example, peanut butter is legally required to have been made from peanuts.
- ficklepickle 7y agoIt is called "puffery"[0], for anyone who is interested. The wikipedia page says a "puff piece" is journalistic puffery. Neat, I hadn't made that connection. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puffery https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puffery
- pjc50 7y agoThose are maximums.
- swarnie_ 7y agoI understand insane maximums, offence stacking and plea deals are part of your culture, maybe we should explore that further?
- skywhopper 7y ago“Not more than”. For most crimes the sentencing guidelines are broad so the context of the case may be taken into account by the judge and/or jury.