3 ms·

I'm not a lawyer, or even an armchair lawyer, so I don't know where to look to find the applicable laws. However, there are plenty of cites from industry people

by gilrain 14y ago

I'm not a lawyer, or even an armchair lawyer, so I don't know where to look to find the applicable laws. However, there are plenty of cites from industry people saying the same thing. I assume they have to be familiar with the law that regulates what they do. And the bun, pickles etc would have to be real by law, is what I'm saying. They're part of a single McD's product being sold by the photo.

tptacek 14y ago
The subtext I'm communicating is, "if I was in the food marketing industry, I sure would want to communicate to the world that I was legally obligated to adhere to some strict code of conduct". It's a credibility booster. So I'm going a step further and seeing if anyone can use an advanced legal tool like Google or Wikipedia to find the place that says McDonalds must-absolutely-must use real pickles or exactly the real McNugget coating, no spraypaint allowed, in its food shoots. I think we've already shot to shit the verity of these photos when we observe that they're browning the burgers on a panini press and then saying "this food is ugly because if it looked like the ad, it would taste like shit". Well, you can say the same thing about overcooked protein as you can about a can of shellac, can't you?
- gilrain 14y ago
  "So I'm going a step further and seeing if anyone can use an advanced legal tool like Google or Wikipedia to find the place" I tried that, of course, and didn't find a proper law reference in the amount of time I dedicated to the task. I'll have leave it up to you to satisfy your curiosity from here. Please do post if/when you find it!
  - Retric 14y ago
    It get's back to case law. But false advertising is a 'means of advertisement other than labeling, which is misleading in a material respect; and in determining whether an advertisement is misleading, there shall be taken into account (among other things) not only representations made or suggested by statement, word, design, device, sound, or any combination thereof, but also the extent to which the advertisement fails to reveal facts material in the light of such representations or material with respect to consequences which may result from the use of the commodity to which the advertisement relates under the conditions prescribed in said advertisement, or under such conditions as are customary or usual. The net result of this basically means if your selling a burger, you must show a picture of a burger using the materials you use to make a burger. But, you don't need to use the same methods.
- rprasad 14y ago
  In re Campbell Soup Co., 77 F.T.C. 664 (1970). It took all of 2 minutes to find the case. You have to know where to look. The case is not available digitally for free or as part of subscriptions to legal research databases to Lexis, Westlaw, etc. It is available digitally if you are willing to pay for individual access to the case; price varies depending on the LRD used. Note that the FTC has not ever actually issued formal regulations on this topic. This is largely for administrative reasons: if the FTC published formal rules, it would be bound to those rules; with informal rules, it is better able to address ads which are deceptive but otherwise satisfy the letter of the law. (This flexibility is a good thing, otherwise the rules on food advertising alone could fill a small room.)
  - pbreit 14y ago
    That probably supports tptacek's contention (apologies if not your contention) that actual, specific rules do not really exist?
    - rprasad 14y ago
      Correct. The "rules" are just guideposts. Campbell is essentially the FTC saying what a company should do in order to avoid an enforcement action (for food ads). You don't need to follow the rules set forth in Campbell, but then you run the risk that if your ad is even the slightest bit deceptive the FTC will come calling with a fine.

by gilrain 14y ago

tptacek 14y ago

The subtext I'm communicating is, "if I was in the food marketing industry, I sure would want to communicate to the world that I was legally obligated to adhere to some strict code of conduct". It's a credibility booster. So I'm going a step further and seeing if anyone can use an advanced legal tool like Google or Wikipedia to find the place that says McDonalds must-absolutely-must use real pickles or exactly the real McNugget coating, no spraypaint allowed, in its food shoots. I think we've already shot to shit the verity of these photos when we observe that they're browning the burgers on a panini press and then saying "this food is ugly because if it looked like the ad, it would taste like shit". Well, you can say the same thing about overcooked protein as you can about a can of shellac, can't you?

gilrain 14y ago
"So I'm going a step further and seeing if anyone can use an advanced legal tool like Google or Wikipedia to find the place" I tried that, of course, and didn't find a proper law reference in the amount of time I dedicated to the task. I'll have leave it up to you to satisfy your curiosity from here. Please do post if/when you find it!
- Retric 14y ago
  It get's back to case law. But false advertising is a 'means of advertisement other than labeling, which is misleading in a material respect; and in determining whether an advertisement is misleading, there shall be taken into account (among other things) not only representations made or suggested by statement, word, design, device, sound, or any combination thereof, but also the extent to which the advertisement fails to reveal facts material in the light of such representations or material with respect to consequences which may result from the use of the commodity to which the advertisement relates under the conditions prescribed in said advertisement, or under such conditions as are customary or usual. The net result of this basically means if your selling a burger, you must show a picture of a burger using the materials you use to make a burger. But, you don't need to use the same methods.
rprasad 14y ago
In re Campbell Soup Co., 77 F.T.C. 664 (1970). It took all of 2 minutes to find the case. You have to know where to look. The case is not available digitally for free or as part of subscriptions to legal research databases to Lexis, Westlaw, etc. It is available digitally if you are willing to pay for individual access to the case; price varies depending on the LRD used. Note that the FTC has not ever actually issued formal regulations on this topic. This is largely for administrative reasons: if the FTC published formal rules, it would be bound to those rules; with informal rules, it is better able to address ads which are deceptive but otherwise satisfy the letter of the law. (This flexibility is a good thing, otherwise the rules on food advertising alone could fill a small room.)
- pbreit 14y ago
  That probably supports tptacek's contention (apologies if not your contention) that actual, specific rules do not really exist?
  - rprasad 14y ago
    Correct. The "rules" are just guideposts. Campbell is essentially the FTC saying what a company should do in order to avoid an enforcement action (for food ads). You don't need to follow the rules set forth in Campbell, but then you run the risk that if your ad is even the slightest bit deceptive the FTC will come calling with a fine.