[ad_1]
Under the Federal Trade Commission’s guides for endorsements, the test is rightly very protective of consumers: whether they “are likely to believe” the endorsement “reflects the opinions, beliefs, findings, or experiences of a party other than the sponsoring advertiser.” Nor does the endorser necessarily need to be an expert in the field, as surely no one thought Mr. Brady, a football legend, had expertise that extended to esoteric financial transactions.
The article noted precedent under the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, where I represented retirees bilked of their savings through fake mortgage sales that the Illinois courts called a classic Ponzi scheme; both actors, Lloyd Bridges and George Hamilton, paid to settle claims that their commercials induced reliance on what proved to be anything-but-safe investments.
Whether celebrities are hired to tout cryptocurrency or fake mortgages, our courts shouldn’t allow them to profit through false advertising schemes and then wash their hands of liability.
Stephanie Kanwit, Alexandria
When I see celebrities endorsing a product or service, my reaction is: So what? All they care about is the money they receive for endorsing the product or service, which they probably know very little about. The FTX bankruptcy proved that point.
Mr. Wonderful from ABC’s “Shark Tank” got $15 million for being an FTX spokesman. Tom Brady, his former wife, Gisele Bündchen, and Shaquille O’Neal were endorsers, and now they are also defendants in the FTX case. Being the best quarterback, a supermodel or basketball player does not make you an expert or even vaguely knowledgeable about a product.
When will everyday people understand that these endorsers are making a lot of money, which in many cases adds to the cost of what we buy?
[ad_2]
Source link