[GA, Defeated] - truth in advertising

Status
Not open for further replies.
Simone

Simone

Ursine thingy
-
-
Pronouns
It
TNP Nation
Simone_Republic
Discord
simonenstnp
ga.jpg

Truth In Advertising
Category: Regulation | Area of Effect: Consumer Protection
Proposed by: New Kowloon Bay | Onsite Topic​

Recognizing the potential consequences of false advertising, including financial harm to consumers, erosion of trust in corporations and unfair competition between said corporations,

Understanding that regulations are needed to make sure that products and corporations are truthfully represented,

The General Assembly hereby:

  1. For the purposes of this resolution, defines “corporations” as organizations recognized by law as a single entity which is engaged in commercial activities, for example companies and other organizations, regardless of their structure or ownership.
  2. It also defines “advertising” as a paid form of communication intended to influence consumers’ behaviors and draw audiences’ attention to a product or service. The payment used to create the advertisment [sic] is required to be given by the seller, and "advertiser" as the corporation that is engaged in advertising activities.
  3. Requires corporations to:
    1. Make sure that all advertising materials used, including but not limited to product descriptions, testimonies and claims are truthful.
    2. Substantiate controversial claims with supporting evidence when practicable.
    3. Disclose clearly the relationship between individuals who have close relationships with a corporation and said corporation when they give testimonies about the corporation being advertised.
  4. Requires corporations to disclose any information that may influence consumer behavior regarding said advertising product, including but not limited to potential side effects or risks due to the consumption of the advertised product or service.
    1. Corporations are not required to disclose specific details about competitor's pricing.
  5. Mandates corporations to show reasonable amounts of evidence for factual claims when such evidence is requested by authorities, such as endorsements or awards made in their advertising which have been conducted by independent evaluation.
    1. Subjective opinions, such as general praise or exaggerated comments should be distinguished as non-objective descriptions.
    2. Factual claims must not be exaggerated in a way that is misleading to consumers.
  6. Establishes the “Fair Advertising Commission”, which in the case that above advertising standards are not followed through and domestic authorities have not taken action, will conduct investigations and impose penalties on those corporations found guilty.
    1. The FAC will not impose penalties on corporations if domestic authorities have already penalized it for the same violation unless the penalties are deemed insufficient, and impose additional ones if neccessary [sic].
  7. Nothing in this proposal prevents member nations from having stricter regulations than those required by this proposal.
Click to expand...
Note: Only votes from TNP WA nations and NPA personnel will be counted. If you do not meet these requirements, please add (non-WA) or something of that effect to your vote.
Voting Instructions:
  • Vote For if you want the Delegate to vote For the resolution.
  • Vote Against if you want the Delegate to vote Against the resolution.
  • Vote Abstain if you want the Delegate to abstain from voting on this resolution.
  • Vote Present if you are personally abstaining from this vote.
Detailed opinions with your vote are appreciated and encouraged!

ForAgainstAbstainPresent
3701
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Overview
This proposal seeks to tackle the issue of false advertising. It mandates that corporations make sure that all advertising statements and claims are true, all controversial statements are backed up with evidence, and to acknowledge when a person who has a relationship with a corporation is making a claim about said corporation in advertising. It also requires that corporations disclose any information concerning the behaviour of the consumer after using or consuming the advertised product, including potential side effects or risks. The proposal then mandates that factual claims must be substantiated with sufficient evidence as required by the relevant authorities, and that opinions must be distinguished as a non-objective description. Finally, the proposal establishes the Fair Advertising Commission (FAC), which would oversee that advertising standards are kept as described in the proposal and to conduct investigations when the standards are not kept.

Recommendation
Whilst this proposal is good natured, its definitions could easily be misapplied. The largest issue is that the proposal places the same restrictions on all corporations regardless of their structure or ownership. This would mean that small companies would have to conduct substantial research on their products in order to legally advertise, despite the fact they may not have the financial capabilities to carry out this research. Also, the proposal is not explicit in exactly how much research must be carried out to be legal; this proposal would require an unnecessary amount of research to justify a very subtle statement. Finally, the proposal is not explicit in what constitutes a ‘side effect’; most products have some way of causing harm to a being.

For the above reasons, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote Against the GA proposal at vote, "Truth in Advertising".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Strongly against.

1. There's numerous issues regarding free speech, etc., which were never quite addressed by the author forumside. Corporations also have First Amendment rights. Also it can be twisted by any number of malicious actors.

2. This was very quickly re-drafted from one focusing on dietary supplements and beauty products (which I criticized) and became a much more generalist one, and without much consultation before a quick submission.

See also the below re abuse of process.
 
Last edited:
For.

Simone:
Corporations also have First Amendment rights.
Click to expand...
This is the World Assembly, not the United States Assembly. Even if it were, freedom of speech is not and should not be an absolute right. The WA's free speech resolution, GA #436, makes this clear. It's absolutely justified to ban corporations from engaging in misinformation for the sake of jacking up their profit margins.
 
Last edited:
Magecastle:
For.


This is the World Assembly, not the United States Assembly. Even if it were, freedom of speech is not and should not be an absolute right. The WA's free speech resolution, GA #436, makes this clear. It's absolutely justified to ban corporations from engaging in misinformation for the sake of jacking up their profit margins.
Click to expand...

Are you talking IC as The Ice States or OOC?
 
Abuse of process

"Regardless of their structure or ownership" because it means small businesses will need plenty of money to conduct rigorous scientific tests to justify even the smallest of claims.

Suppose you sell a homemade pasta source:

1. Asserting that a pasta is "authentically Italian" would require a survey of Italy and an independent panel of experts on different regions of Italy (and what constitutes Italy, and what constitutes "authentic")

2. Asserting that a pasta source is made of "natural ingredients" would require long disclaimers on chemical tests and detailed disclosures on manufacturing processes (which may involve trade secrets)

3. The long list of "potential side effects or risks due to the consumption of the advertised product" including broken glass from the package, choking on the pasta source, or me hitting you with the bottle and causing an injury

4. Also all the various types of allergies that may be suffered by different species across the multiverse

If I am a lawyer from a large corporation trying to stop a product from a small business, I'd sue as a consumer for violations of the said laws. I'd have standing as having been a customer of that bottle of pasta source. The legal fees alone would kill the small business through strategic use of the legal process (technically it might not constitute "abuse").
 
Last edited:
Against

For now, at least, to be on the safe side; I'm not particularly convinced by the "free speech" argument, but would be concerned about misapplication of these regulations, particularly as a result of its definitions.
 
nvxl:
Against

For now, at least, to be on the safe side; I'm not particularly convinced by the "free speech" argument, but would be concerned about misapplication of these regulations, particularly as a result of its definitions.
Click to expand...

Basically a large business can sue a small business to the ground with frivolous lawsuits for false advertising, and the small business would be bankrupt before they can respond. The drafting is really poor.
 
Present.
Not applicable to Vexilia.
"Free Speech". Corporations aren't people no matter what some misguided politicians may argue within their borders.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top