> 'Deceit' does not start and end with the technical definition of fraud. No, but fraud does start and end within the definition of 'deceit'. > They shout the

> 'Deceit' does not start and end with the technical definition of fraud. No, but fraud does start and end within the definition of 'deceit'. > They shout their ads and whisper their disclaimers. Why should we ignore their shouting? I've not personally seen ads for supplements of the kind you're describing, but if they* were* advertising features that weren't actually available in the products, that is, at minimum, a bait-and-switch ad, which is already a fraudulent practice. > Why should you be able to sell something that you lead others to believe is good for them when it isn't? Whether it is or isn't "good for them" is, of course, determined by them - we're in the realm of value judgments here - and while it's entirely unethical and already illegal to sell someone a product on the basis of fraudulent information, selling a product with an explicit disclaimer that states that the product has not been empirically proven to fulfill any health claims made about it is perfectly legitimate. Selling dandelions in a box marked "dandelions" without making any unprovable claims is always perfectly OK; selling dandelions as a cure for cancer is already a fraudulent activity punishable by law.