Red Bull False Advertising $13 million lawsuit Essay

Red Bull False Advertising $13 million lawsuit - Essay useAlthough the corporation did not admit liability, I would like to fault its management for acting inappropriately. In my opinion, the finis of the company to use Red Bull gives you earngs as its marketing slogan was shoddy. It is an unlawful movement that violates Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.A. 1125(a) which considers such a statement as a violation of the law. According to the act, the slogan qualifies as a misleading advert because of its ambiguity and incompleteness that made it possible for the target thickenings to misunderstand and dislocate it for something else. This is because the slogan did not provide all the facts about the product. Instead of disclosing all the facts that the targeted consumers should know, the slogan remained partial and incomplete. By merely stating that the consumption of the companys brands, one gets wings, is quite complicated and can be misleading (Bangert, et al. 19).It is a very serious offense that can really affect the company should any client file a suitcase for misleading advert as it happened. The slogan helped the company to appeal to and win the confidence of many clients. Besides, it capitalized on it by hiking the prices of its product since they were perceived to superior to those of its competitors. Therefore, to avoid such suitcases, the company should refrain from publishing misleading adverts (Bangert, et al. 19). In fact, all ads should comply with the Lanham Act, be simple, clear, complete and easy to comprehend.