ftc
argued
december
decided
april
federal
trade
commission
charged
respondents
advertiser
advertising
agency
using
commercials
deceptive
within
meaning
federal
trade
commission
act
commercials
purported
give
viewers
visual
proof
advertiser
shaving
cream
soften
sandpaper
unknown
viewers
substance
appeared
sandpaper
commercials
fact
simulated
prop
made
plexiglass
sand
applied
hearing
commission
issued
order
respondents
interpreted
forbid
use
undisclosed
simulations
television
commercials
appeals
set
aside
order
broad
five
months
later
commission
issued
revised
order
prohibiting
respondents
presenting
advertisements
depicting
test
experiment
demonstration
represented
actual
proof
product
claim
fact
constituting
actual
proof
undisclosed
use
prop
judgment
setting
aside
order
commission
petitioned
certiorari
held
period
allowed
filing
petition
certiorari
commenced
date
second
judgment
appeals
since
commission
second
order
attempt
incorporate
legal
principles
contained
first
mandate
least
second
opinion
resolved
genuine
ambiguity
first
pp
material
deceptive
practice
convey
television
viewers
false
impression
seeing
actual
test
experiment
demonstration
proves
product
claim
undisclosed
use
pp
ftc
judgment
constitutes
deceptive
practice
accorded
great
weight
reviewing
courts
admonition
especially
true
respect
allegedly
deceptive
advertising
since
finding
violation
field
rests
heavily
inference
pragmatic
judgment
misrepresentation
fact
long
materially
induces
purchaser
decision
buy
deception
prohibited
order
issued
case
well
within
commission
wide
discretion
determine
type
order
necessary
cope
unfair
practices
found
pp
crucial
terms
present
order
specific
circumstances
permit
borderline
situations
respondents
oblige
ftc
advise
whether
contemplated
commercial
complies
order
since
respondents
produced
three
different
commercials
employed
deceptive
practice
commission
sufficient
basis
believing
respondents
inclined
use
similar
commercials
respect
products
advertise
philip
heymann
argued
cause
petitioner
briefs
solicitor
general
cox
assistant
attorney
general
orrick
james
mci
henderson
john
sonnett
argued
cause
respondents
brief
arthur
mermin
brief
ted
bates
thomas
austern
william
allen
briefs
amici
curiae
urging
affirmance
filed
mahlon
perkins
american
association
advertising
agencies
gilbert
weil
association
national
advertisers
chief
justice
warren
delivered
opinion
basic
question
us
whether
deceptive
trade
practice
prohibited
federal
trade
commission
act
represent
falsely
televised
test
experiment
demonstration
provides
viewer
visual
proof
product
claim
regardless
whether
product
claim
true
case
arises
attempt
respondent
company
prove
television
public
shaving
cream
rapid
shave
outshaves
respondent
ted
bates
company
advertising
agency
prepared
colgate
three
commercials
designed
show
rapid
shave
soften
even
toughness
sandpaper
commercials
contained
sandpaper
test
announcer
informed
audience
prove
rapid
shave
power
put
right
onto
tough
dry
sandpaper
apply
soak
stroke
announcer
speaking
rapid
shave
applied
substance
appeared
sandpaper
immediately
thereafter
razor
shown
shaving
substance
clean
federal
trade
commission
issued
complaint
respondents
colgate
bates
charging
commercials
false
deceptive
evidence
hearing
examiner
disclosed
sandpaper
type
depicted
commercials
shaved
immediately
following
application
rapid
shave
required
substantial
soaking
period
approximately
minutes
evidence
also
showed
substance
resembling
sandpaper
fact
simulated
prop
made
plexiglass
sand
applied
however
examiner
found
rapid
shave
shave
sandpaper
even
though
short
time
represented
commercials
real
sandpaper
used
commercials
inadequacies
television
transmission
made
appear
viewers
nothing
plain
colored
paper
examiner
dismissed
complaint
neither
misrepresentation
concerning
actual
moistening
time
identity
shaved
substance
opinion
material
one
mislead
public
commission
opinion
dated
december
reversed
hearing
examiner
found
since
rapid
shave
shave
sandpaper
within
time
depicted
commercials
respondents
misrepresented
product
moisturizing
power
moreover
commission
found
undisclosed
use
plexiglass
substitute
sandpaper
additional
material
misrepresentation
deceptive
act
separate
distinct
misrepresentation
concerning
rapid
shave
underlying
qualities
even
sandpaper
shaved
depicted
commercials
commission
found
viewers
misled
believing
seen
done
eyes
result
findings
commission
entered
order
respondents
appeal
taken
appeals
first
circuit
rendered
opinion
november
sustained
commission
conclusion
respondents
misrepresented
qualities
rapid
shave
accept
commission
order
forbidding
future
use
undisclosed
simulations
television
commercials
set
aside
commission
order
directed
new
order
entered
may
commission
protest
respondents
issued
new
order
narrowing
clarifying
original
order
comply
mandate
appeals
found
unsatisfactory
portion
order
dealing
simulated
props
refused
enforce
granted
certiorari
consider
aspect
case
us
question
concerning
misrepresentation
rapid
shave
shave
sandpaper
immediately
application
conceded
threshold
question
presented
whether
petition
certiorari
filed
within
days
entry
judgment
required
respondents
claim
failure
commission
seek
certiorari
judgment
appeals
rendered
november
barred
subsequent
order
prohibiting
use
simulated
props
commercials
offer
visual
proof
product
claim
appeals
set
aside
order
commission
point
law
commission
may
seek
certiorari
disagrees
legal
conclusion
section
federal
trade
commission
act
contemplates
time
filing
petition
certiorari
passed
without
petition
filed
commission
enter
order
accordance
mandate
appeals
commission
may
merely
restate
former
position
new
order
apply
certiorari
appeals
reiterates
previous
objection
said
federal
power
idaho
power
second
judgment
restate
decided
first
one
days
start
run
first
judgment
effect
see
federal
trade
regulator
however
also
held
reviewing
finds
legal
error
administrative
order
agency
foreclosed
upon
remand
case
enforcing
legislative
policy
act
administers
provided
new
order
conflict
reviewing
mandate
obviously
drafted
mandate
normally
best
position
determine
whether
commission
subsequent
order
consistent
mandate
never
foreclosed
determining
issue
resolution
issue
present
case
requires
detailed
analysis
various
opinions
mandates
orders
issued
commission
appeals
initial
opinion
dated
december
commission
commented
heart
commercials
visual
sandpaper
test
designed
leave
viewer
impression
actually
seen
experiment
performed
commission
expressed
view
without
visible
proof
rapid
shave
moisturizing
ability
viewers
might
persuaded
buy
product
commission
entered
discussion
use
television
relationship
truth
television
salesmanship
finally
concluded
use
plexiglass
prop
deceptive
practice
commission
order
inclusive
discussion
ordered
respondents
cease
desist
representing
directly
implication
describing
explaining
purporting
prove
quality
merits
product
pictures
depictions
demonstrations
genuine
accurate
representations
prove
quality
merits
product
pictures
depictions
demonstrations
fact
genuine
accurate
representations
prove
quality
merits
product
emphasis
added
light
commission
order
oral
argument
concluded
commission
intention
prohibit
simulated
props
television
commercials
agree
position
since
believed
untruth
substance
viewer
sees
screen
artificial
visual
appearance
otherwise
correct
accurate
representation
product
injured
setting
aside
commission
order
gave
little
specific
guidance
drafting
new
one
merely
criticized
commission
holding
illegal
per
se
indicated
commission
order
may
broad
respects
well
following
decision
appeals
commission
entered
new
proposed
final
order
february
order
accompanied
explanatory
opinion
admitted
error
original
disposition
case
expressed
intention
eliminate
errors
found
appeals
commission
explained
new
order
directed
toward
broad
prohibition
undisclosed
simulated
props
commercials
merely
toward
prohibiting
respondents
misrepresenting
public
seeing
test
experiment
demonstration
purportedly
proved
product
claim
according
commission
television
commercial
question
merely
tell
viewers
experiment
performed
instead
told
seeing
take
seller
word
mere
use
prop
misrepresentation
found
deceptive
practice
vigorous
objection
respondents
commission
issued
final
order
may
respondents
ordered
cease
desist
unfairly
deceptively
advertising
product
presenting
test
experiment
demonstration
represented
public
actual
proof
claim
made
product
material
inducing
sale
fact
genuine
test
experiment
demonstration
conducted
represented
fact
constitute
actual
proof
claim
undisclosed
use
substitution
prop
instead
product
article
substance
represented
used
therein
hold
commission
order
may
disregard
appeals
first
mandate
attempt
incorporate
legal
principles
contained
therein
examination
commission
first
order
accompanying
opinion
shows
overriding
emphasis
failure
articulate
precision
actual
deceptive
practice
found
result
surprising
criticized
order
ambiguous
interpreted
prohibiting
substitution
product
commercial
found
rested
premise
illegal
per
se
true
also
said
viewers
interested
see
means
see
statement
occurred
immediately
discussed
contention
oral
argument
deceptive
practice
represent
person
drinking
lipsom
iced
tea
fact
clear
directive
mandate
commission
remove
fundamental
error
permeates
order
error
every
use
deceptive
practice
find
inconceivable
commission
successfully
sought
certiorari
judgment
done
forced
argue
either
every
use
commercials
deceptive
practice
apparently
unintended
theory
reinstate
commission
decision
theory
something
said
securities
exchange
chenery
support
given
conclusion
refusal
appeals
declare
commission
subsequent
order
inconsistent
previous
mandate
however
even
first
opinion
appeals
somehow
construed
hold
matter
law
never
deceptive
practice
use
undisclosed
props
commercial
designed
convince
viewer
seeing
proof
seller
claims
find
commission
acted
reasonably
construing
mandate
narrowly
commission
vague
first
order
spawned
correspondingly
vague
opinion
appeals
meant
first
opinion
say
attributed
second
opinion
clearly
articulated
reasoning
therefore
least
second
opinion
resolved
genuine
ambiguity
first
time
within
certiorari
requested
dates
second
judgment
see
federal
trade
regulator
ii
reviewing
substantive
issues
case
well
remember
respective
roles
commission
courts
administration
federal
trade
commission
act
commission
created
congress
directed
prevent
nfair
methods
competition
commerce
congress
amended
act
extend
commission
jurisdiction
include
unfair
deceptive
acts
practices
commerce
significant
amendment
showing
congress
concern
consumers
well
competitors
important
note
generality
standards
illegality
proscriptions
flexible
defined
particularity
myriad
cases
field
business
federal
trade
motion
picture
advertising
service
statutory
scheme
necessarily
gives
commission
influential
role
interpreting
applying
facts
particular
cases
arising
unprecedented
situations
moreover
administrative
agency
deals
continually
cases
area
commission
often
better
position
courts
determine
practice
deceptive
within
meaning
act
frequently
stated
commission
judgment
given
great
weight
reviewing
courts
admonition
especially
true
respect
allegedly
deceptive
advertising
since
finding
violation
field
rests
heavily
inference
pragmatic
judgment
nevertheless
informed
judicial
determination
dependent
upon
enlightenment
gained
administrative
experience
last
analysis
words
deceptive
practices
set
forth
legal
standard
must
get
final
meaning
judicial
construction
cf
federal
trade
keppel
concerned
case
clear
misrepresentation
commercials
concerning
speed
rapid
shave
shave
sandpaper
since
appeals
upheld
commission
finding
matter
respondents
challenged
finding
granted
certiorari
consider
commission
conclusion
even
advertiser
conducted
test
experiment
demonstration
honestly
believes
prove
certain
product
claim
may
convey
television
viewers
false
impression
seeing
test
experiment
demonstration
undisclosed
use
accept
commission
determination
commercials
involved
case
contained
three
representations
public
sandpaper
shaved
rapid
shave
experiment
conducted
verified
claim
viewer
seeing
experiment
respondents
admit
first
two
representations
made
deny
third
commission
however
found
contrary
since
matter
fact
resting
inference
reasonably
drawn
commercials
commission
finding
sustained
purposes
review
assume
first
two
representations
true
focus
consideration
third
clearly
false
parties
agree
prohibits
intentional
misrepresentation
fact
constitute
material
factor
purchaser
decision
whether
buy
differ
however
conception
facts
constitute
material
factor
purchaser
decision
buy
respondents
submit
effect
material
facts
deal
substantive
qualities
product
commission
hand
submits
misrepresentation
fact
long
materially
induces
purchaser
decision
buy
deception
prohibited
commission
interpretation
deceptive
practice
seems
line
decided
cases
respondents
said
federal
trade
algoma
lumber
public
entitled
get
chooses
though
choice
may
dictated
caprice
fashion
perhaps
ignorance
long
considered
deceptive
practice
state
falsely
product
ordinarily
sells
inflated
price
offered
special
reduced
price
even
offered
price
represents
actual
value
product
purchaser
receiving
money
worth
applying
respondents
arguments
cases
appear
long
buyers
paid
product
actually
worth
product
contained
qualities
advertised
misstatement
inflated
original
price
immaterial
also
held
violation
seller
misrepresent
public
certain
line
business
even
though
misstatement
way
affects
qualities
product
said
federal
trade
royal
milling
consumers
dealers
prefer
purchase
given
article
made
particular
manufacturer
class
manufacturers
right
right
satisfied
imposing
upon
exactly
similar
article
one
equally
good
different
origin
respondents
claim
cases
irrelevant
decision
involve
misrepresentations
related
product
merely
manner
advertising
message
communicated
distinction
misses
mark
two
reasons
first
place
present
case
concerned
mode
communication
misrepresentation
viewers
objective
proof
seller
product
claim
seller
word
secondly
cases
like
present
case
deal
methods
designed
get
consumer
purchase
product
whether
product
purchased
perform
expectations
find
especially
strong
similarity
present
case
cases
seller
induces
public
purchase
arguably
good
product
misrepresenting
line
business
concealing
fact
product
reprocessed
misappropriating
another
trademark
seller
used
misrepresentation
break
regards
annoying
irrational
habit
buying
public
preference
particular
manufacturers
known
brands
regardless
product
actual
qualities
prejudice
reprocessed
goods
desire
verification
product
claim
case
seller
reasons
habit
broken
buyer
satisfied
performance
product
receives
yet
misrepresentation
used
break
habit
stated
algoma
lumber
misrepresentation
end
permitted
need
limit
cases
already
mentioned
situations
also
illustrate
correctness
commission
finding
present
case
generally
accepted
deceptive
practice
state
falsely
product
received
testimonial
respected
source
addition
commission
consistently
acted
prevent
sellers
falsely
stating
product
claims
certified
find
situations
indistinguishable
present
case
assume
underlying
product
claim
true
seller
actually
conducted
experiment
sufficient
prove
truth
claim
seller
told
public
rely
something
word
concerning
truth
claim
validity
experiment
find
immaterial
difference
one
case
viewer
told
rely
word
celebrity
authority
respects
another
word
testing
agency
present
case
perception
undisclosed
simulation
respondents
insist
present
case
like
like
case
celebrity
independent
testing
agency
fact
submitted
written
verification
experiment
actually
observed
inability
camera
transmit
accurately
impression
paper
testimonial
written
seller
reproduces
another
substance
seen
viewing
audience
analogy
ignores
finding
commission
present
case
seller
misrepresented
public
given
objective
proof
product
claim
respondents
hypothetical
objective
proof
product
claim
offered
word
celebrity
agency
experiment
actually
conducted
exist
case
us
objective
proof
offered
viewer
perception
actual
experiment
exist
thus
respondents
hypothetical
unlike
present
case
use
undisclosed
conflict
seller
claim
objective
proof
agree
commission
therefore
undisclosed
use
plexiglass
present
commercials
material
deceptive
practice
independent
separate
misrepresentation
found
find
unpersuasive
respondents
objections
conclusion
respondents
claim
impractical
inform
viewing
public
seeing
actual
test
experiment
demonstration
think
inconceivable
ingenious
advertising
world
unable
desires
conform
commission
insistence
public
misinformed
however
becomes
impossible
impractical
show
simulated
demonstrations
television
truthful
manner
indicates
television
medium
lends
type
commercial
commercial
must
survive
costs
similarly
unpersuasive
respondents
objection
commission
decision
discriminates
sellers
whose
product
claims
verified
television
without
use
simulations
methods
advertising
equally
favor
every
seller
inherent
limitations
method
permit
use
way
seller
desires
seller
material
misrepresentation
compensate
limitations
respondents
also
claim
commission
reached
decide
question
properly
presented
abstract
question
argue
since
commercials
present
case
misrepresented
time
element
involved
shaving
sandpaper
consider
additional
misrepresentation
public
objective
proof
seller
claim
already
said
misrepresentations
separate
distinct
fail
see
respondents
sheltered
order
respect
one
deceptive
practice
merely
also
engaged
another
respondents
finally
object
consider
absence
adequate
record
sustain
commission
finding
true
initial
stages
case
concerned
misrepresentation
product
underlying
qualities
misrepresentation
objective
proof
given
nevertheless
misrepresentations
case
beginning
respondents
never
prejudicially
misled
believing
second
question
considered
necessary
commission
conduct
survey
viewing
public
determine
commercials
tendency
mislead
commission
finds
deception
also
authorized
within
bounds
reason
infer
deception
constitute
material
factor
purchaser
decision
buy
see
federal
trade
raladam
find
record
case
sufficient
support
commission
findings
iii
turn
attention
order
issued
commission
repeatedly
held
commission
wide
discretion
determining
type
order
necessary
cope
unfair
practices
found
jacob
siegel
federal
trade
congress
placed
primary
responsibility
fashioning
orders
upon
commission
federal
trade
national
lead
reasons
courts
lightly
modify
commission
orders
federal
trade
cement
institute
however
also
warned
order
prohibitions
clear
precise
order
may
understood
directed
federal
trade
cement
institute
supra
severity
possible
penalties
prescribed
violations
orders
become
final
underlines
necessity
fashioning
orders
outset
sufficiently
clear
precise
avoid
raising
serious
questions
meaning
application
federal
trade
henry
broch
appeals
criticized
reference
commission
order
test
experiment
demonstration
capable
practical
interpretation
find
difference
rapid
shave
commercial
commercial
extolled
goodness
ice
cream
giving
viewers
picture
scoop
mashed
potatoes
appearing
ice
cream
understand
difficulty
ice
cream
case
mashed
potato
prop
used
additional
proof
product
claim
purpose
rapid
shave
commercial
give
viewer
objective
proof
claims
made
ice
cream
hypothetical
focus
commercial
becomes
undisclosed
potato
prop
viewer
invited
explicitly
implication
see
truth
claims
ice
cream
rich
texture
full
color
perhaps
compare
rival
product
commercial
become
similar
one
us
clearly
however
commercial
depicts
happy
actors
delightedly
eating
ice
cream
fact
mashed
potatoes
drinking
product
appearing
coffee
fact
substance
covered
present
order
crucial
terms
present
order
test
experiment
demonstration
represented
actual
proof
claim
specific
circumstances
permit
respondents
subsequent
commercials
attempt
come
close
line
misrepresentation
commission
order
permits
may
without
specifically
intending
cross
area
proscribed
order
however
seem
unfair
require
one
deliberately
goes
perilously
close
area
proscribed
conduct
shall
take
risk
may
cross
line
boyce
motor
lines
commercials
emphasis
seller
word
viewer
perception
respondents
need
fear
undisclosed
use
props
prohibited
present
order
hand
commercial
makes
claim
also
invites
viewer
rely
perception
demonstrative
proof
claim
respondents
aware
use
undisclosed
props
strategic
places
might
material
deception
believe
respondents
difficulty
applying
commission
order
vast
majority
contemplated
future
commercials
however
situation
arises
respondents
sincerely
unable
determine
whether
proposed
course
action
violate
present
order
complying
commission
rules
oblige
commission
give
definitive
advice
whether
proposed
action
pursued
constitute
compliance
order
finally
find
defect
provision
order
prohibits
respondents
engaging
similar
practices
respect
product
advertise
propriety
broad
order
depends
upon
specific
circumstances
case
courts
interfere
except
remedy
selected
reasonable
relation
unlawful
practices
found
exist
case
respondents
produced
three
different
commercials
employed
deceptive
practice
believe
gave
commission
sufficient
basis
believing
respondents
inclined
use
similar
commercials
respect
products
advertise
think
reasonable
commission
frame
order
broadly
enough
prevent
respondents
engaging
similarly
illegal
practices
future
advertisements
said
federal
trade
ruberoid
commission
limited
prohibiting
illegal
practice
precise
form
found
existed
past
caught
violating
act
respondents
must
expect
fencing
federal
trade
national
lead
judgment
appeals
reversed
case
remanded
entry
judgment
enforcing
commission
order
reversed
remanded
footnotes
stat
amended
ed
order
commission
modified
set
aside
appeals
time
allowed
filing
petition
certiorari
expired
petition
duly
filed
petition
certiorari
denied
decision
affirmed
order
commission
rendered
accordance
mandate
appeals
shall
become
final
expiration
thirty
days
time
order
commission
rendered
unless
within
thirty
days
either
party
instituted
proceedings
order
corrected
accord
mandate
event
order
commission
shall
become
final
corrected
securities
exchange
chenery
federal
communications
pottsville
broadcasting
see
labor
board
donnelly
garment
federal
communications
pottsville
broadcasting
supra
note
ibid
ftc
may
additional
clause
added
order
benefit
respondent
bates
recognition
different
positions
clients
advertising
agencies
often
information
product
client
clause
reads
provided
however
shall
defense
hereunder
respondent
neither
knew
reason
know
product
article
substance
used
test
experiment
demonstration
prop
stat
amended
stat
see
federal
trade
motion
picture
advertising
service
federal
trade
raladam
see
universal
camera
labor
board
federal
trade
pacific
paper
trade
brief
petitioner
brief
respondent
colgate
brief
respondent
bates
brief
respondent
colgate
buyer
interested
whether
actual
product
buys
look
perform
way
appeared
television
set
buyer
real
concern
truth
substantive
claims
promises
made
means
used
make
commission
error
confuse
substantive
claim
made
product
means
claim
conveyed
brief
respondent
bates
pp
viewer
reader
advertisement
buys
product
exactly
portrayal
advertisement
asserts
unlawful
misrepresentation
induces
buyer
purchase
claim
product
perform
represented
portrayed
test
material
claim
representation
way
relating
product
purchase
even
strained
suggestion
implied
representation
realistic
representation
plainly
immaterial
federal
trade
standard
education
society
kalwajtys
federal
trade
cir
cert
denied
kerran
federal
trade
cir
cert
denied
sub
nom
double
eagle
ref
federal
trade
mohawk
ref
federal
trade
cir
cert
denied
niresk
industries
federal
trade
cir
cert
denied
niresk
industries
federal
trade
supra
note
howe
federal
trade
cir
cert
denied
see
stipulation
stipulation
commission
rules
cfr
supp
provide
respondent
subject
commission
order
may
request
advice
commission
whether
proposed
course
action
pursued
constitute
compliance
order
request
advice
submitted
writing
secretary
commission
include
full
complete
information
regarding
proposed
course
action
basis
facts
submitted
well
information
available
commission
commission
inform
respondent
whether
proposed
course
action
pursued
constitute
compliance
order
commission
may
time
reconsider
approval
report
compliance
advice
given
section
public
interest
requires
rescind
revoke
prior
approval
advice
event
respondent
given
notice
commission
intent
revoke
rescind
given
opportunity
submit
views
commission
commission
proceed
respondent
violation
order
respect
action
taken
good
faith
reliance
upon
commission
approval
advice
section
relevant
facts
fully
completely
accurately
presented
commission
action
promptly
discontinued
upon
notification
rescission
revocation
commission
approval
federal
trade
national
lead
federal
trade
ruberoid
jacob
siegel
federal
trade
justice
harlan
justice
stewart
joins
dissenting
part
limited
grant
certiorari
case
must
assume
advertiser
perform
experiment
question
demonstration
simple
execute
appears
television
question
techniques
advertiser
may
use
convey
essential
truth
television
viewer
claim
true
valid
technique
projecting
claim
within
broad
boundaries
falls
purely
within
advertiser
art
warrant
federal
trade
commission
police
verity
claim
agree
use
television
advertiser
deceptive
trade
practice
independent
deceptive
element
commercial
think
record
justifies
broad
remedial
order
issued
commission
remand
case
commission
proceedings
see
commercial
said
deceptive
legally
acceptable
use
term
attempts
distinguish
case
celebrity
written
testimonial
endorsing
product
original
testimonial
seen
television
copy
shown
air
manufacturer
hypothetical
respondents
hypothetical
objective
proof
product
claim
offered
word
celebrity
agency
experiment
actually
conducted
exist
case
us
objective
proof
offered
viewer
perception
actual
experiment
exist
ante
cases
viewer
told
see
one
case
celebrity
endorsed
product
product
shave
sandpaper
neither
case
viewer
actually
seeing
proof
cases
objective
proof
exist
original
testimonial
sandpaper
test
actually
conducted
manufacturer
neither
case
however
material
misrepresentation
viewer
sees
accurate
image
objective
proof
readily
understand
accurate
portrayal
experiment
means
considered
deceptive
use
mashed
potatoes
convey
glamorous
qualities
particular
ice
cream
ante
pp
indeed
smile
face
tiger
might
come
naturally
actually
served
ice
cream
commonly
known
television
presents
certain
distortions
transmission
broadcasting
industry
must
compensate
thus
white
towel
look
dingy
gray
television
blue
towel
look
sparkling
white
analysis
advertiser
must
achieve
accuracy
studio
even
though
results
inaccurate
image
projected
home
screen
led
appeals
question
whether
proper
advertiser
show
product
television
somehow
medium
looks
better
screen
real
life
perhaps
commonplace
example
suggests
proper
respondent
colgate
advertising
laundry
detergent
demonstrate
effectiveness
major
competitor
detergent
washing
white
sheets
viewer
eyes
wash
white
blue
sheet
competitor
detergent
studio
test
accurately
show
quality
product
image
screen
look
though
sheet
washed
ineffective
detergent
happened
converse
demonstration
altered
studio
compensate
distortions
television
medium
instance
order
present
accurate
picture
television
viewer
short
seems
proper
legal
test
cases
kind
concerns
goes
broadcasting
studio
whether
shown
television
screen
accurate
representation
advertised
product
claims
made
ii
commission
remedy
concluding
observations
called
brings
support
commission
broad
order
suggestion
might
difficult
commission
police
reliability
simulated
demonstrations
commission
might
cause
concern
advertisers
demonstrated
propensity
misrepresentation
policing
factor
certainly
permit
commission
sweep
broad
brush
used
since
risk
inaccurate
reproduction
inheres
commercials
involving
tests
experiments
although
commission
doubtless
wide
discretion
fashioning
remedies
ante
believe
order
banning
use
justified
merely
score
policing
indication
however
commission
troubles
respondents
past
see
commission
find
pattern
misrepresentations
respondents
creates
substantial
risk
accurately
portray
experiments
permitted
continue
using
commission
present
order
might
well
justified
think
commission
opportunity
make
findings
unnecessary
believe
mistaken
view
case
end
vacate
judgment
appeals
remand
case
commission
proceedings
light
said
opinion