To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

4,5
Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.
.
Leo
Newton
Brights
Milds

FTC v. Colgate-Palmolive Co.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Federal Trade Commission v. Colgate-Palmolive Company
Argued December 10, 1964
Decided April 5th, 1965
Full case nameFederal Trade Commission v. Colgate-Palmolive Company
Citations380 U.S. 374 (more)
85 S. Ct. 1035; 13 L. Ed. 2d 904; 1965 U.S. LEXIS 2300
Court membership
Chief Justice
Earl Warren
Associate Justices
Hugo Black · William O. Douglas
Tom C. Clark · John M. Harlan II
William J. Brennan Jr. · Potter Stewart
Byron White · Arthur Goldberg
Case opinions
MajorityWarren, joined by Black, Douglas, Clark, Brennan, White, Goldberg
Concur/dissentHarlan, joined by Stewart

Federal Trade Commission v. Colgate-Palmolive Company, 380 U.S. 374 (1965), was a United States Supreme Court case.

Background

A Colgate-Palmolive advertisement claimed that its Palmolive Rapid Shave shaving cream was so good it could be used to shave sandpaper. The commercial showed sandpaper applied with shaving cream and then shaved.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) complained that the ad was deceptive and a material misrepresentation because it was not sandpaper but rather sand sprinkled on glass. Colgate-Palmolive argued that the product really could shave sandpaper if left on long enough. Colgate-Palmolive sued arguing that the FTC had overstepped its authority.[1]

Opinion of the Court

The Supreme Court agreed with the FTC that the commercial was a material misrepresentation. The ruling forced advertisers to remain truthful in their product presentations. As a result, commercials often feature "dramatization" notifications.[2]

References

  1. ^ Richards, Jef I. (1990). Deceptive Advertising: Behavioral Study of a Legal Concept. L. Erlbaum Associates. ISBN 978-0-8058-0649-6.
  2. ^ "FTC v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 380 U.S. 374 (1965)". Justia Law.

External links


This page was last edited on 13 September 2023, at 02:11
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.