Ashley Madison and false advertising

I’m sure there’s a dirty joke in here somewhere: the Ashley
Madison hack apparently exposed the site’s promise of equal numbers of men and women
seeking opposite-sex affairs as untrue
, with women running more at 15% of
the site.  I don’t agree with this presentation
of the issue:
[W]hatever the site’s claims, its
apparent gender imbalances probably isn’t enough to call it a scam. “In the
law, there’s this idea of puffery. Salespeople, and that’s what they are, are
allowed to exaggerate,” says Hofstra University law professor Miriam Albert.
“A saleslady at Lord and Taylor
says, ‘That dress looks awesome on you,’ when in reality, you’re packed like a
10-pound sausage into a 5-pound casing. She’s allowed to say that and you can’t
sue her for it because you’re not relying on her to make the purchase.”
Similarly, there were some women on
the site, so even if there weren’t as many as Biderman publicly claimed, the
difference may not be enough to deem it fraud. “If what they’re really saying
is ‘It’s evenly split,’ and someone went into it with that basis, I bet you
could get your money back,” Albert says. “I’m just not sure it rises to the
level of actionable fraud. It’s the cusp between puffery and fraud. It’s a
slippery slope.”
Puffery of the “you look great in that” type is opinion;
“this site has half women and half men” is not opinion. Exaggerating numbers is
a classic example of a misrepresentation that can be sufficient to constitute
false advertising.  I’m not sure what’s
slippery about the slope here—other than the aforesaid dirty joke.

from Blogger

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s