TWELVE FALSE ADVERTISEMENTS

Twelve false advertising scandals that cost some brands millions of dollars.

It doesn't pay to deceive the public.

In advertising,

there's a big difference between pushing the truth and making false claims.

Many companies have been caught out for peddling mediocre products

using wild claims like scientifically proven with guaranteed results.

For companies that cross the line,

it can cost millions and lead to a damaged reputation.

Here are 12 examples of false advertising scandals that have rocked big brands.

Some are still ongoing,

and not all companies have had to pay up,

but each dealt with a fair amount of negative publicity.

Coming in at number 1,

Activia yogurt said it had special bacterial ingredients.

Ads for Dan Activia brand yogurt landed the company with a class action

settlement of $45 million in 2010,

according to ABC News.

The yogurts were marketed as being clinically and scientifically proven to

boost your immune system and able to help to regulate digestion.

The Activia ad campaign,

fronted by actress Jamie Lee Curtis,

claimed that the yogurt had special bacterial ingredients.

As a result,

the yogurt was

sold at 30% higher prices than other similar products.

However,

the Cleveland judge overseeing the case said that these claims were unproven.

The lawsuit against Dannon began in 2008

when consumer Trish Wiener lodged a complaint.

On top of the fine of $45 million,

Dannon was ordered to remove clinically

and scientifically proven from its labels,

according to ABC.

Phrases similar to clinical studies show were deemed permissible.

Dannon denied any wrongdoing and claimed it settled a

lawsuit to avoid the cost and distraction of litigation.

Coming in at 2,

Red Bull said it could give you wings.

Energy drink company Red Bull was sued in 2014 for its slogan,

"Red Bull gives you wiiings."

The company settled the class action case by

agreeing to pay out a maximum of $13 million

including $10 to every U.S. consumer who had bought the drink since 2002.

The tagline which the company has used

for nearly two decades went alongside marketing

claims that the caffeinated drink could improve

a consumer's concentration and reaction speed.

Benjamin Careathers was one of several consumers who

brought the case against the Austrian Drinks Company.

He said he was a regular consumer of Red Bull for 10 years,

but that he had not developed wings or shown

any signs of improved intellectual or physical abilities.

Red Bull released this statement following the settlement.

Red Bull settled the lawsuit to avoid the cost and distraction of litigation.

However,

Red Bull maintains that its marketing and labeling have always been

truthful and accurate and denies any and all wrongdoing or liability.

Coming in at #3,

Tesco was criticized for an ad in response to

the horse meat scandal which suggested the problem affected

the whole food industry.

In 2013,

UK supermarket chain Tesco was criticized after it ran a misleading

ad campaign in the wake of its horse meat scandal,

according to The Telegraph.

The supermarket had been caught selling beef contaminated with horse

meat in some of its burgers and ready meals.

In an attempt to recover from the PR disaster,

Tesco ran a two-page spread in national newspapers with the headline,

What

burgers have taught us?

In the ad,

Tesco was criticized for implying that the whole meat

industry was implicated in the horse meat fiasco,

which was untrue.

The UK advertising regulator ASA banned the campaign.

Nearly 300 million pounds,

that's almost $432 million

was wiped off the value of Tesco following the horse meat scandal,

according to The Guardian.

At number 4,

Kellogg's said Rice Krispies could boost your immune system.

Kellogg's Popular Rice Krispies cereal had a crisis in 2010 when the

brand was accused of misleading consumers

about the product's immunity boosting properties,

according to CNN.

The Federal Trade Commission ordered Kellogg to

halt all advertising that claimed that the

cereal improved the child's immunity with 25%

daily value of antioxidants and nutrients,

vitamins A,

B,

C,

and E,

stating the claims were dubious.

The case was settled in 2011.

Kellogg agreed to pay $2.5 million to affected consumers,

as well as donating $2.5 million worth of Kellogg products to charity,

according to Law360.

And straight in at number 5,

Kellogg again.

Later,

Kellogg said Mini Wheats could make you smarter.

In 2013,

Kellogg was in even more trouble.

The company agreed to pay $4 million for false

advertising claims it made about frosted Mini Wheats.

The cereal company had falsely claimed that

the Mini Wheats improved children's attentiveness,

memory,

and other cognitive functions.

According to Associated Press,

the ad campaign claimed that the breakfast cereal

could improve a child's focus by nearly 20%.

In its defense, Kellogg

said that the ad campaign ran for 4 years previously and

that it had since adjusted its claims about the cereal.

Kellogg also noted that it has a long history of responsible advertising.

People who consumed the cereal during the time the ad ran,

which was during January 28,

2009 to October 1,

2009,

were allowed to claim back $5 per box with a maximum of $15 per customer,

according to Associated Press.

Coming in at number 6,

New Balance said its shoe could help wearers burn calories.

New Balance was accused of false advertising in 2011 over a

sneaker range that it claimed could help wearers burn calories,

according to Reuters.

Studies found that there were no health benefits from wearing the shoe.

The toning sneaker claimed to use hidden brand technology and

was advertised as calorie burners that activated the glutes,

quads,

hamstrings,

and calves.

Plaintiffs in the lawsuit claimed to have been

harmed and misled by the sneaker company.

On August 20,

2012,

New Balance agreed to pay a settlement of $2.3 million

according to the Huffington Post.

Coming in at number 7,

Walmart falsely advertised the price of coke in New York.

Walmart agreed to pay more than $66,000 in fines after

overcharging customers from 117 stores in New York for Coca-Cola.

The supermarket chain had advertised a nationwide sale on the soft drink of 2014,

where 12 packs would cost just $3.

However,

customers in New York State were charged $3.50.

Walmart staff allegedly lied about the reason for the price hike,

telling customers that New York has a sugar tax,

according to corporate crime reporter.

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman,

who conducted the investigation,

concluded the price

violated New York State's general business law

349 and 350.

Coming in at number 8,

Definity Eye Cream retouched the model in an anti-aging ad.

In 2009,

an Olay ad for its Difinity Eye cream showed former model Twiggy

looking wrinkle-free and a whole lot younger than her then 60 years.

It turned out that the ads were retouched according to the Guardian.

The British advertising regulator ASA

banned the ad after Liberal Democrat lawmaker Jo

Swinson gathered more than 700 complaints against it.

The digitally altered spots were deemed to give a

misleading impression of the effect the product could achieve.

Ola's parent company,

Procter and Gamble,

responded that it was routine practice to

use post-production techniques to correct poor lighting and

other minor photographic deficiencies before publishing the final

shots as part of an advertising campaign.

Coming in at number 9,

Splenda said it was made from sugar.

The Sugar Association asked for an investigation into

alternative sweetness blenders made from sugar slogan.

It complained that the tagline was misleading and that the sweetener is

nothing more than highly processed chemical compound made in a factory,

CBS reported.

In 2007,

a resulting lawsuit led by the makers

of rival sweetener Equal settled against Splenda.

Equal was looking for

$200 million from Splenda in the settlement for unfair profits.

However,

the exact amount of the settlement remains confidential according to NBC.

Coming in at number 10,

L'Oreal claimed its skincare products were clinically proven to boost genes.

In 2014,

cosmetics company L'Oreal was forced to admit

that it's Lancôme Génifique and L'Oreal Paris

Youth Code skin care products were not clinically proven to boost genes and

give visibly younger skin in just 7 days as stated in its advertising.

According to the FTC,

the claims were false and unsubstantiated.

In the settlement,

L'Oreal USA was banned from making claims about anti-aging

without competent and reliable scientific evidence substantiating such claims,

the FTC said.

"Though L'Oreal escaped the fine at the time,

each future violation of this agreement will cost the company up to $16,000.

Coming in at number 11.

Eclipse said its gum could kill germs.

Eclipse gum claimed in its ads that its new ingredient,

magnolia bark extract,

had germ killing properties.

A lawsuit brought by consumers alleged that the ads were misleading,

according to Businessweek.

Wrigley denied wrongdoing, but was ordered to pay more than $6 million to a fund

that would reimburse consumers up to $10 each for the misleading products in 2010.

Coming in at number 12,

a lawsuit alleged that Taco Bell was falsely advertising its beef.

In 2011,

consumers raised questions about what constituted Taco Bell's seasoned beef.

According to the lawsuit reported in adage,

the seasoning used was oat filler,

which means the meat isn't seasoned beef at all,

according to USDA standards.

The suit alleged that the franchise had been tricking its consumers into

thinking its products were of higher grade than they actually were.

Taco Bell took the opportunity to poke fun at itself,

hoping to mitigate the PR disaster.

The company even took a four-page newspaper

ad out thanking complainants for suing.

Taco Bell was vindicated and the lawsuit was withdrawn in April 2011,

according to Associated Press.

And finally,

it isn't a piece of advertising,

it's actually two books that I highly recommend.

Now Salt Sugar Fat and Fast Food Nations are

two pieces of investigative reporting on the food industry,

and it covers everything from how they make their food to how they advertise to us,

to how they try and cover up

the downside of their foods such as obesity,

diabetes,

their PR,

the way they try and

manipulate and lobby.

All of that is just

covered in these books and it's quite shocking,

it's quite sad,

but it's a reality that we need to face. And once we know about it,

then we're less likely to wanna

give our money away to these companies,

because at the end of the day it's a return on investment that's negative.

So, for example,

if I buy,

let's say a Big Mac.

It might taste good on the spot,

but then half an hour later I'm not gonna feel too good.

It's gonna be high in saturated fats,

high in sugar,

high in salt,

it's gonna mess my body up,

and then I'm gonna feel bloated,

lethargic.

Sometimes

you can actually have a headache after eating these foods,

and so the return on investment is negative.

And also the fact that they hire

scientists

and food engineers

to make these products extra palatable

is

quite bizarre.

So, if you think about Pringles,

you know,

the crunch,

the flavor,

the smell,

everything about the product

has been designed.

And it's designed to make us

extremely addicted to these products.

And also they covered the marketing in these books.

Now the marketing that these food companies use,

I mean,

you've seen in the examples that I showed you before,

the marketing is just frightening because they

know exactly at what hours to market,

they know exactly how to market,

and they know exactly what to show us to make us motivated to go out and buy them.

And if we haven't got money to buy them,

for example,

let's say I'm a child,

I'm a 7-year-old,

they know exactly how to make that 7-year-old nag

his parents until they give in and buy him the product

or her.

And then what happens to that child is that as the child grows up,

that brand gets imprinted and embedded in the child's brain,

so when the child becomes a teenager and then an adult,

he's a buyer for life

because that brand is the number one brand that's embedded in the child's brain.

And then that child becomes an adult,

and then

he will always seek out that product.

Just think about it.

Maybe you've been to the store and you wanted

a specific product,

a specific brand,

that's what you had in mind,

and the store didn't have that specific brand.

And then you were kind of hesitant to maybe buy something else,

even though it was the same

product.

It was just the branding that was more powerful.

Now why is that?

And the reason is because they got us when we were young.

So, these two books,

incredible,

really insightful,

quite

alarming,

but it's

good to have this source of knowledge because then we can make wiser decisions.

And just like the previous examples,

the 11 that I showed you,

they're really insightful.

And so,

hopefully this kind of,

it's a game changer for you.

It was a game changer for me.

It has made my decisions a little bit

more wise,

and it's really important because

at the end of the day,

we don't have infinite sources of money and when we spend it we

want to spend it right and we want to invest it right.

And preferably

what we invest

the money in will be

good for us and for our health.

So, hopefully this video was helpful,

insightful.

And if it was,

don't forget to like,

comment, and subscribe and I'll see you in the next video. (MUSIC)