The impact of advertisements have a tremendous influence on consumer rights, emphasising the need of promotions that are fair and accurate. Deceptive advertising undermines integrity, distorts competition, and limits customer options. Such methods violate key consumer rights, including the right to knowledge, choice, and protection against deceptive products.

Exaggeration is frequent in advertising, but when it crosses the line into falsehoods or manipulative methods, it raises issues. Examples include health claims for oil and false tariff information from a cell phone carrier. Misleading advertisements have spread from print media to television, reaching a larger audience, including individuals who may not be literate. Previously limited to print and mainstream media, misleading marketing methods are increasingly prevalent across several channels, needing heightened attention to defend consumer rights.

Research Methodology
The research methodology for the topic false advertisement claims involves a comprehensive review of this area, analyze data and draw a meaningful conclusion. The data for this research includes legal literature, case studies, important books and articles.

The study will analyze the legal principle regarding false advertisement claims, recent legal trends and outcomes , important laws regarding false advertisement and recent case laws related to false advertisements.

Hypothesis
False advertisement claims: Recent litigation and outcomes. The application of theory which will apply in this topic is Consumer Protection Act of 1986 perform the functions of the Unfair Competition Action, The Cigarettes and other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply, and Distribution) Act, 2003 (CTP Act) and The (Insurance Advertisements and Disclosure) Regulations, 2000.1

Research Question:

1. How has false advertisement impacted the market platform and legal trends in the world and what key factors influencing recent false advertisement claims?
2. How have recent legal outcomes reflected a balance between protecting consumers from deceptive advertising and fostering a competitive business environment?

Analysis
An advertisement serves as a marketing tool utilized by producers and manufacturers to promote their products to consumers. It facilitates communication between product owners and consumers helping the latter understand the benefits and value of upcoming products. Advertising is a communication method that introduces a product or services brand to the public. According to William J. Stanton advertising encompasses activities that involve delivering sponsored messages through media channels to a target audience.

Deceptive advertising occurs when information is misrepresented leading to consumer confusion or influencing purchasing decisions. Legal frameworks, in jurisdictions prohibit misleading advertising practices preventing misrepresentation of product quality, composition, manufacturing details, pricing or origin.

"False" refers to the distortion of facts, which can lead to poor decision-making owing to inaccurate information. Consumers rely significantly on advertising messages to guide their purchasing decisions, leaving them susceptible when they are unable to distinguish between true and deceptive information.

In an age of plentiful information, buyers must prioritize obtaining correct information during the purchase process. Buyer beware advice is critical, emphasizing the significance of due investigation when analyzing product or service features. False advertising is defined as making purposefully false statements about a product or service in order to affect people's perceptions.

Over time, the proliferation of deceptive commercials prompted regulatory action, including the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act of 1954. However, this legislation lacked sufficient provisions for addressing deceptive marketing and imposing2 penalties.

The 1969 Monopolies and Restrictive Commercial Practices Act and the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 targeted unfair trade practices and deceptive representations but lacked effective enforcement mechanisms and penalties for offenders. The Cable Television Network Regulation Act and Rule, 1995, and the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, addressed deceptive marketing to some extent but lacked measures for remedial action.

The deficiency in deterrents led to the enactment of The Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which penalizes creators and endorsers of false advertisements. Provisions defining misleading ads were introduced on July 15, 2020, with additional sections, including penalties under Chapter III, announced on July 23, 2020, and implemented on July 24, 2020.

The Consumer Protection Act of 2019 became effective in 2020. This new legislation will empower consumers and pass various rules and regulations to help them protect their rights through multiple provisions, such as consumer protection advice, consumer dispute resolution committees, mediation, product liability, and penalties for sales. It promotes, protects and enforces consumer rights.

Consumer Protection Act, 2019 provisions on misleading advertisements:

Section 2(28): defines misleading advertisements as any advertisement in relation to any product or service which:

• Falsely describes such product or services or
• It gives a false guarantee to, or is likely to mislead the consumers as to the nature, substance, quantity or quality of such product or services or
• It conveys an express or implied representation which, if made by the manufacturer or seller or services provider thereof, would constitute an unfair trade practice or
• Deliberately conceals important information.3

False advertising has disturbed market platforms, eroded customer trust, and hampered competitiveness. To combat dishonest tactics, legal trends throughout the world are emphasizing strict laws, enforcement, and substantial fines. Recent erroneous advertisement claims have been driven by the proliferation of deceptive strategies in digital marketing, as well as growing customer demands for openness.

Adapting to the problems provided by deceptive techniques, legal systems throughout the world are working to find a balance between safeguarding consumers and supporting fair competition, resulting in a situation in which corporations face more scrutiny for their advertising activities.

Recent court rulings highlight the delicate balance between protecting consumers from misleading advertising and promoting a competitive business environment. Courts and regulatory authorities are increasingly prioritizing consumer protection, implementing harsh penalties for misleading acts to discourage unethical behavior while ensuring fair competition.

Legal frameworks emphasize openness and make businesses accountable for accurately representing their products or services. Verdicts frequently evaluate the influence on customer trust and overall market integrity. Recognizing the changing nature of advertising, particularly in the digital era, the legal system adjusts by amending legislation to include new platforms and technology.

While punitive measures are necessary to discourage dishonest behavior, authorities strive to avoid impeding innovation or establishing unduly restrictive restrictions that may stifle legitimate competition. In essence, recent court rulings represent a sophisticated approach approach to addressing the negative effects of misleading advertising on consumers while fostering a marketplace built on trust, openness, fair competition, and responsible innovation.

Recent Legal Cases An Outcomes

Patanajli Fasle Advertisement Case

The Supreme Court issued a directive to Patanjali Ayur-Ved to cease disseminating deceptive statements and advertisements against contemporary medical systems, threatening significant penalties for non-compliance. The court emphasized the importance of refraining from similar advertising in the future and cautioned against making casual remarks to the media. Chief Justice of India N.V. Ramana stressed the need for restraint in criticizing other medical systems and urged Baba Ramdev to exercise caution.

The bench clarified that the issue wasn't about "allopathy vs ayurveda" but about addressing deceptive medical advertisements. The court instructed the Union Government's additional solicitor general to propose viable solutions to the situation. Justice Amanullah warned of strict consequences, including fines of up to Rs 1 crore for products making false claims about curing specific diseases.

Red Bull Case

Red Bull, known for its "Red Bull gives you wings" tagline and thrilled marketing, was the target of a class action complaint alleging fraudulent advertising. Plaintiffs argued that Red Bull's promises of improved physical performance lacked scientific backing, tempting customers to pay high rates. Red Bull paid for $13 million in 2014, admitting wrongdoing while compensating impacted customers since 2002.

The deal sought to avoid costly litigation. Despite maintaining the integrity of its marketing, the case emphasized the value of honest advertising. It serves as a cautionary story for companies to maintain authenticity in their messaging, emphasizing the influence on reputation and customer trust.

Johnson & Johnson Case

Johnson & Johnson, a worldwide firm recognized for its numerous consumer products and medicines, attracted criticism for their trademark Johnson's Baby Powder. Despite safety concerns about its talc-based product, accusations arose that the corporation was targeting certain populations, most notably African American and overweight women.

The practice prompted ethical concerns about marketing methods, particularly those involving health-related items. Numerous lawsuits were filed alleging a relationship between Johnson's Baby Powder and ovarian cancer or mesothelioma.

A Reuters investigation discovered unreported amounts of asbestos in talc goods, causing public outcry and lengthy lawsuits. In response, Johnson & Johnson terminated their talc-based baby powder brand, signalling a dramatic change driven by concerns about product safety and transparency.

Horlicks Limited vs Zydus Wellness Products Limited

Horlicks Limited filed a permanent injunction against Zydus Wellness Products for running an advertising suggesting that one glass of Complan equals two glasses of Horlicks. Horlicks said the advertisement was false and insulting. Zydus claimed accuracy based on prescribed serving sizes.

The Delhi High Court held that the advertisement was false and insulting. Despite a disclaimer, the perception of Complan excellence without regard to serving size persisted. Balancing convenience, the court ruled in favour of Horlicks, citing the possibility of irreparable injury if the advertisement remained unfettered. As a result, the High Court ordered an interim injunction, restricting the challenged advertising's broadcast.

Scope:

• Legal frameworks and jurisdictions: Investigating legal norms and frameworks for misleading advertising claims in various nations.
• Analyzing how various legal systems approach and define deceptive advertising, as well as the regulatory entities involved.
• Industry-specific analysis: Examining deceptive advertising claims in certain industries, such as medicines, food and beverage, and technology.
• Consumer Perceptions and Impacts: Investigate the psychological and economic effects of deceptive advertising on customers.

Limitation:

• Global variability: The breadth may be limited due to significant variations in legal systems and regulatory frameworks between nations, making complete study difficult.
• The Evolving Nature of Advertising: Rapid changes in advertising strategies and platforms may make it difficult to maintain current and relevant research.
• Access to information: Limited access to secret corporate information or legal papers may impede a thorough grasp of the complexities of specific false advertising instances.

Conclusion
In conclusion, False advertising claims create a comprehensive business issue that includes regulatory frameworks, industry complexities, customer perceptions, and the ever-changing digital marketing landscape. Despite research providing useful insights into business and legal strategy, inherent limits exist owing to the changing nature of advertising and the difficulty in getting sensitive information.

Beyond legal implications, these accusations have an influence on customer trust, brand reputation, and overall market integrity, as seen by high-profile lawsuits like Johnson & Johnson and Red Bull.

Navigating this terrain requires a careful mix of successful marketing and ethical concerns, with an emphasis on openness and accurate information sharing. The lessons learned emphasize the critical necessity of maintaining consumer trust. To effectively adapt to an ever-changing business environment, organizations must remain watchful, maintaining attuned to emerging trends and regulatory changes.

References:

1. The Consumer Protection Act § 28 Acts of Parliament, 2019.
2. Ahmad, F. (no date) False And Misleading Advertisements - Legal Perspectives, J STORE. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/43927467.
3. Amirisetty, R.M. and Sravanthi, S.M. (2021) Consumer protection law: Consumer protection act, 2019. Hyderabad: Asia Law House.
4. Nuseir, M.T. (2018b) 'Impact of misleading/false advertisement to consumer behaviour', International Journal of Economics and Business Research, 16(4), p. 453. doi:10.1504/ijebr.2018.095343.