Deceptive Advertising. Brian Cleary and Rita Burke filed a suit against cigarette maker Philip Morris USA, Inc., seeking class-action status for a claim of deceptive adver- tising. Cleary and Burke claimed that light cigarettes, such as Marlboro Lights, were advertised as safer than regular ciga- rettes, even though the health effects are the same. They con- tended that the tobacco companies concealed the true nature of light cigarettes. Philip Morris correctly claimed that it was authorized by the government to advertise cigarettes, includ- ing light cigarettes. Assuming that is true, should the plaintiffs still be able to bring a deceptive advertising claim against the tobacco company? Why or why not? [Cleary v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 683 F.Supp.2d 730 (N.D.Ill. 2010)] (See Advertis- ing, Marketing, and Sales.) 447. A Question of EthicsFair Debt-Collection Prac- tices. BarrySussmangraduatedfromlawschool,butalsoserved time in prison for attempting to collect debts by pos- ing as an FBI agent. He theorized that if a debt- collection business collected only debts that it owned as a result of buying checks written on accounts with insufficient funds (NSF checks), it would not be subject to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Sussman formed Check Investors, Inc., to act on his theory. Check Investors bought more than 2.2 million NSF checks, with an estimated face value of about $348 million, for pennies on the dollar. Check Investors added a fee of $125 or $130 (more than the legal limit in most states) to the face amount of each check and aggressively pursued its drawer to collect. The firms employees were told to accuse draw- ers of being criminals and to threaten them with arrest and pros- ecution. The threats were false. Check Investors never took steps to initiate a prosecution. The employees contacted the drawers family members and used saturation phoningphoning a drawer numerous times in a short period. They used abusive language, referring to drawers as deadbeats, retards, thieves, and idi- ots. Between January 2000 and January 2003, Check Investors netted more than $10.2 million from its efffffforts. [Federal Trade Commission v. Check Investors, Inc., 502 F.3d 159 (3d Cir. 2007)] (See Credit Protection.) (a) The Federal Trade Commission filed a suit in a federal district court against Check Investors and others, alleging, in part, violations of the FDCPA. Was Check Investors a debt collector, collecting debts, within the meaning of the FDCPA? If so, did its methods violate the FDCPA? Were its practices unethical? What might Check Investors argue in its defense? Discuss. (b) Are deadbeats the primary beneficiaries of laws such as the FDCPA? If not, how would you characterize debtors who default on their obligations?
The post Deceptive Advertising appeared first on My Assignment Online.