There exists a legally unique class of literal advertising statements, puffery claims, that the law assumes to be incapable of causing any consumer deception. Based on the historic treatment of such claims before the law and “logical” interpretations of such claims by jurists, it is presumed that consumers recognize puffs as mere “seller's talk” that is not to be believed. These legal assumptions directly raise research questions about two possible ways puffs might cause actual deception: do substantial numbers of consumers believe puffs as literal facts? and, do consumers believe factual claims that might be implied by the puffs? Findings of any consumer belief of puffs or. what they imply (above a bare incidence) would be seen to contradict legal assumptions of consumer responses to such claims.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rotfeld et al. (1980) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 2 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: