Some jurisdictions require any comparative claim to be justified. A line would resemble
The Acme Anvil is the best Road Runner control device you can buy*.
* as determined by the majority of a panel of 20 coyotes who manage road runners in the Bleak Desert Reserve
Whether that makes it better is in the eye of the beholder.
As an example, there is a certain purveyor of seafood that describes itself as having âThe Best âFish ânâ Chips in the Universeâ and even attributes that learned assessment to science officer Spock of the starship USS Enterprise, whose extensive warp speed travels throughout the universe have allowed him to assess the competition.
Most people would recognise that as not intended to be taken seriously and in any case âpufferyâ but, on the other hand, if there is an objective measure of how good âfish ânâ chipsâ are, the claim might not stand up in court.
A post I did in another topic.
When puffery leads to real harm.
Many of the patients who spoke to Four Corners said they had been lured in by Dr Lanzerâs brash social media presence and by glowing reviews of him and his team.
But the Four Corners investigation also uncovered evidence of a patient being paid off to remain silent.
Mark Corbett was so unhappy with his facelift that he posted a Google review declaring he would give Dr Lanzer âzero starsâ.
That review is no longer publicly available.
Dr Lanzer says in his 30-year career heâs never had a single ruling or recommendation against him by any regulator.(Four Corners)
In its place is a five-star review from Mark Corbett which reads: "Itâs been a great result with Dr Lanzer his caring approach to the issues & hands on care and amazing after-care!
âI can highly recommend Dr Lanzer.â
Mr Corbettâs updated review.
Mr Corbett told Four Corners that within a day of posting the original review, Dr Lanzer called him.
âHe was almost crying on the phone and he asked me how much money I wanted. I said, flippantly, a thousand bucks, and he offered to fix it himself. But thereâs no way I wanted him to touch me again.â
Mr Corbett accepted the $1,000 and changed the review.
âI do sometimes think about whether I should have amended the review, because he really shouldnât be practising.â
Space to play or pause, M to mute, left and right arrows to seek, up and down arrows for volume.
WATCH
Duration: 50 minutes 5 seconds50m
Watch the Four Corners investigation into the unregulated world of cosmetic surgery.
Four Corners has also uncovered at least five Google reviews that were written by staff members at Dr Lanzerâs clinics, or by their relatives.
Former staff member Justin Nixon said it was common practice.
âHe asked many of the staff members to write reviews to boost the score,â he said.
âHe had made an appeal to staff that they should be writing reviews, encouraging staff to write reviews as well.â
Dr Lanzer declined to answer specific questions about the customer review allegations.
He described the Four Corners report as âspuriousâ, âunfairâ and âmisinformationâ.
Reading the ABC article and considering the 4 Corners program, this is about much more than puffery.
The core issue raised by the Journalists concerns regulation and the quality of the work performed. Puffery might relate to some of the phrases used in how the business is presented. The accuracy of customer reviews is always questionable.
The adequacy or inadequacy of consumer protections when medical care is provided has been discussed in a number of other community topics. A common concern is an overall lack of transparency leading to the public impression the system works to protect the profession, to the disadvantage of the consumer.
Itâs an observation that might apply to a number of professions possibly including building construction, legal practice, real estate and âŠ.
I was mainly referring to the above.
And a couple more âglowingâ reviews.
https://www.realself.com/review/liposuction-worst-experience-doctor
https://bestinyou.org/2021/10/26/daniel-lanzer-accused-of-processing-google-reviews/
If the clients had not been lured in by the marketing would the outcomes delivered been any different?
There is no doubting the lack of reliability in the use of social media or over enthusiastic claims by past clients or the business.
Should consumers need to rely on social media and unregulated review web services?
Or
Should consumers be able to rely on effective Government regulation of professional services?
The former is more in keeping with visions of the American wild west, IMO. Some might suggest little has changed since. The second is likely best served by meaningful and effective regulations of the industry and its professionals.
There is an alternate course of action with the option to regulate all public web based review sites and social media. Hopefully there is no need to consider further why that might not be so easy.
The topic has been listed again. Dr Lanzer had retired from practice. There have been changes to cosmetic surgery rules due to problems within the cosmetic surgery community and hopefully these will reduce the incidence of bad outcomes for patients.
I have seen a number of posts that still raise the issue of puffery and how it is being used, sometimes with effects to consumers that seem intolerable. Is puffery being allowed to become broader in its impact, has it remained static or has it decreased? My opinion is that its effect is still too broad in its applications and it should be curtailed, others may agree or have different opinions.
I think the law about the use of puffery needs to change to make it less flexible in the way puffery is used. Advertising needs to sell truth and not untruth or unbelievable assertions.
Imagine governments getting interested in reigning in advertising when, as evidenced in numerous countries, the political parties and thus those in positions to do so are selling alternative fact free realities and they have found multitudes of eager customers to consume and believe their âfact free reality challenging storiesâ.
Although they could and would and do exempt themselves they still will worry about that âslippery slopeâ that might one day include themselves so here we are.
Introduce computer generated imagery and individual/AI generated fake videos and I struggle to imagine how a process of regulation and policing could be effective in the general case.
But with all that ânegativeâ I agree with you.
I agree where the puffery is unsupported, such as making a claim that a product is the âbest in the world/country/state/townâ, âbest at doing somethingâ or âmakes you do/perform etc betterâ when the product has no support to this claim.
But when claims are made like âtastes betterâ, âlatest fashionâ, âlook goodâ or are illustrative photographs of how the product can be used, such phrases/photos are subjective statements based on a point of view. One consumer might agree with these or totally disagree based on their own preferences. I donât think we should be removing puffery in these cases because some consumers disagree based on their own views.
Many brand names, slogans and brand taglines are examples of puffery. Think about those that use ânature/naturalâ, âecoâ, âorganicsâ and such like when it could be argued that the products are clearly not the literal meaning of these terms. Changing advertising/branding such that only the truth is given might expose the government to significant compensation when brand names are forced to change to remove âuntrueâ puffery.
The consumer also needs to be aware of puffery and have tools to be able to look independently at product information when making purchases.
Edit: Some industries, such as the cosmetics industry almost fully operate in the world of puffery - as most cosmetic products are about making a consumer feel good rather than delivering on their miracle beauty claims. While it would be great if unsubstantiated claims/puffery was totally removed from the cosmetic industry, neither the industry or consumer using the products might agree.
Likewise plant based products claiming to be a meat alternative. This possibly is a step over the line as some product labels/claims border on misleading rather than puffery. The industry would claim it was pufferyâ.
The laws about misleading and false advertising possibly already cover puffery which is deliberately deceptive to persuade a customer to purchase a product. Maybe these laws should be enforced to those cases of puffery which have stepped over the line to being deliberately misleading or false. This might tighten up and make it clear what is acceptable puffery.
The community has long accepted a low bar considering,
âIn Australia, it is perfectly legal to lie in a political ad â and it shouldnât be.
The price of not having regulated appropriately in the first place. As consumers we always seem to playing catch up where businesses assume they have permission to act however they choose until forced to do otherwise. Consumers only need to look to the many calls to action by Choice and the annual Choice Shonky awards to know what is promised is not always delivered.
Do good products and businesses really need puffery?
I donât mind some personal opinion when it comes to product likes and dislikes. It may mean a product can be sold with testimonials that extol its virtues. Those testimonies need to be honest ones though and be the real experience of a real consumer, not some fake or paid for opinion.
Puffery we are subjected to now, I think, is beyond what should be considered fair dealing (or as defined âso unbelievable that it isnât believedâ) as it is often used in ways that sell a trait or traits that the object doesnât even have and is believed by far too many. If it was romance scam it would be illegal, still selling a false promise, however if puffery it is legal.
The fox is in charge of the hen house. What do you expect? Politicians make the rules that apply to themselves. As such, I have my doubts that âtruth in political advertisingâ will get legislated. The only losers from that legislation are the only people who will be voting on it. Do the math.
I also think that âtruth in political advertisingâ would be hugely fraught from a legal and political perspective. I can imagine all sorts of blanket claims that have been made in political campaigns over the years, and
a) Do we really want the election campaign to degenerate into six weeks of campaign followed by three years of litigation (then repeat ad nauseum)?
b) Is it right that the election could be decided in a court of law rather than in the court of public opinion?
c) What exactly are the consequences if a claim made during an election campaign is found to be untruthful?
Donation caps throw up a few issues.
a) See first comment. The fox is in charge of the hen house.
b) All the people who would be voting on such legislation have a conflict of interest.
c) It may be unconstitutional.
That doesnât mean that sensible reforms canât go ahead e.g.
The open question is if the government will not step forward and set the example, why should it be any more objective if setting a standard for business and product marketing.
Change requires consumers to challenge our politicians, irrespective of how we feel they might respond. With 5 decades of voter remorse behind me Iâm convinced our elected members know how it is.
An interesting adjudication on an advertising complaint. The details that resulted in the âoffending adâ being taken down would have been dismissed as âpufferyâ in Australia. It revisits the question whether âpufferyâ is reasonable. Australia does, NZ apparently does not (?) but. It would be nice to be able to believe everything an advertiser (or politician!) says and claims but most of us know better. Education in identifying puffery and summarily dismissing it (chuckles or not) might be a good hour well spent, especially for non-native speakers unfamiliar with it?
Putting aside all the noise, the determination hinged on âeasiest finance in the worldâ. Would a reasonable internet user recognise that as âpufferyâ, and not to be taken as literal fact?
I could think that banning the ad is an insult to my intelligence, because it implies that I am incapable of seeing that it is puffery - although you make a valid point about people whose English is poor (as opposed to non-existent).
The company claimed that the content was ânot an advertisementâ. That is an interesting defence because it completely bypasses this entire topic. In the internet era, the lines have definitely been blurred. However it would appear that the relevant government authority roundly rejected that defence.
I guess also the complaint illustrates the concept of lawfare. We all know why the complainant raised the complaint - and it had nothing to do with âfinanceâ (even though that was included within the complaint).
Hopefully the company re-edits the content in order to remove the problematic mention of finance, and then re-posts the video. Then we might actually be able to view the content for ourselves - and decide for ourselves. 
When you look at this packaging
Is it
Alchol free
Sugar free
Zero sugar
I think the packaging is deliberate
None of the above?
âthe Vodka Cruiser Free 10 Pack brings all the Free flavours together in one delicious variety packâ
Thereâs no added charge for how it tastes. 
Footnote:
Whether the
product is misleading or deceptive in itâs promotion or simply allowed because itâs puffery? Likely the second in the mind of the brandâs marketing consultants.
My interpretation is ⊠the range name is âFREEâ and this is a reference to being âsugar free / zero sugarâ - but that may be influenced by my familiarity with the product.
I would not interpret it as âalcohol freeâ unless it specifically says either âalcohol freeâ or âzero alcoholâ.
I donât see any puffery here.
I think there is merit in the general idea that using branding of âFREEâ should not be allowed - since it is likely to be misleading in any number of ways. I donât think the case is strong enough though to be hassling government / ACCC etc.
What will happen if I go to the liquor store, pick up a pack and walk out without paying? âBut the pack says that itâs free!â
