Corrillard V. Federal Trade Commission Case Study

In the 1950 case of P. Lorillard Co. v. Federal Trade Commission, P. Lorillard Co., the makers of Old Gold cigarettes, were ordered to “cease and desist from making certain representations found to be false in the advertising of its tobacco products (Warner, et al., 2012, p. 950) From a practical perspective in the 1950’s caveat emptor, or “let the buyer beware” is not a fair or reasonable expectation. While the careful consumer could have looked at the article, the culture of the time was not anti-smoking as it is today. The careful consumer at the time was not savvy to the wealth of scientific data regarding smoking and health. The actual ad, see Figure 1: 1942 WW2 Era Old Gold Santa Cigarette Ad, states that the impartial tests were not done to boost sales or claim superiority of brand. The ad misleads the consumer to believe that it was impartially discovered that Old Gold had the stated attributes.
The decision barred P. Lorillard Co. from ““from representing by any means directly or indirectly”: That Old Gold cigarettes or the smoke therefrom contains less nicotine, or less tars and resins, or is less irritating to the throat
Puffing is defined as “the practice of exaggerating the value of a product, a business, or property for promotional purposes. Sellers are not generally held liable for exaggerations that are considered puffing. But they can be liable for misrepresenting the facts of a product” (https://www.law.cornell.edu). Stating that a product has lower levels of nicotine, tar and resin based on impartial scientist as P. Lorillard Co did misrepresent the facts. “According to the uncontracted expert evidence, was so small as to be entirely insignificant and utterly without meaning so far as effect upon the smoker is concerned (Warner, et al., 2012, p 952). If they had claimed someone should smoke Old Gold cigarettes because people everywhere preferred them, this would fall into