A boring technical book and a farewell advertising case study for the 3rd
Column that looks at the precedents related to the landscape method Part 3 This time, we will look at the air purifier case.
What is the air purifier case?
Hello everyone. I'm Tanaka from Intercolor. Last time, in the case of Chlorella, I confirmed that pharmaceutical expressions are dangerous. This time, we will take up the case of the high court called the air purifier case. There is a big difference between the two trials. In the Chlorella case, the plaintiff was a consumer organization. Consumers have appealed to the court to stop the advertisement because it is an advertisement that damages the interests of consumers. However, in the case of the air purifier this time, the Fair Trade Commission issued an exclusion order saying "This advertisement is useless". In response, the company filed a complaint that it was "not convincing." After all, rival companies had similar ads. However, I was ordered to withdraw because there was only a problem with the plaintiff's advertisement. Why is the Fair Trade Commission? I will tell you a little. The prize labeling law was under the jurisdiction of the Fair Trade Commission before the Consumer Affairs Agency was established in 2009. The Fair Trade Commission is a committee based on Article 3 of the National Government Organization Act, and is a well-established administrative organization.
Advertisement content and incident flow
So far for the introduction, let's look at the case. The plaintiff advertised his air purifier in a leaflet for over-the-counter distribution and an advertisement in the Mainichi Shimbun with the following text. ＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿ Collects viruses, bacteria, mold spores, and even debris of mite carcasses together with dust. ・ Applicable range / up to 14 tatami mats ・ Reliably collects invisible harmful substances ・ Filter type collects Collects fine viruses and bacteria that are difficult to dust, mold spores, and even debris of mite carcasses together with dust. It has been proven to remove invisible allergens and even submicron-sized viruses in a different dimension from removing visible tobacco smoke with a fan. I was advertising. ＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿ It collects even viruses and disinfects them. ・ Does not miss bacteria and viruses that cannot be removed by the filter method. , Mold spores / musty odor, virus / miscellaneous bacteria, tobacco odor / smoke, exhaust gas (NOX) / dust "・ Unique powerful Coulomb ULPA absorbs dirt in the air and produces 0.15 micrometer fine particles. 9995% removal. Even smaller particles of 0.006 micrometer, which are similar to viruses, have an even higher collection rate of 99.99999%. ・ Viruses floating in the air can cause diseases such as colds. ・ Pollen・ Catch not only cigarettes but also mites and viruses ・ Quickly surround viruses and germs floating in the air of the room ・ Suppress the growth of germs such as viruses and molds ・ Strongly remove dust, dust and viruses ＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿ Electronic air purifiers are said to perform better than filter types. But one piece or safe, one piece or out. The unsatisfied company argued in a JFTC trial claiming that the exclusion order was illegal, but it was still found to be illegal. In this case, the Fair Trade Commission filed a proceeding with the Tokyo High Court seeking the cancellation of the trial decision, as it was clear that the order issued by the Fair Trade Commission would be disputed by the Fair Trade Commission. Again, the plaintiff loses. In addition, the Supreme Court filed a motion to accept the appeal, but it was rejected, and the decision was finalized.
Reasons for judgment by the Tokyo High Court
Like the plaintiffs, some may have the impression that these ads aren't much different, but why is the Tokyo High Court still having problems with the plaintiffs' ads? To summarize the reason in an easy-to-understand manner: (1) In this advertisement, the plaintiff's air purifier has a higher dust collecting power than other filter-type air purifiers, and the virus in the air is "in a practical sense". It expresses that it has the ability to collect. (2) The plaintiff's air purifier has a lower dust collecting power than the filter type, and does not have the ability to collect viruses in the air "in a practical sense". ③ If the general public knows ②, he will not buy the plaintiff's air purifier. The reason is that the air purifier that you imagine from the advertisement is far from the actual one, which is misleading to consumers.
What's the difference between the two ads
So what's the difference between a plaintiff's ad and another company's ad? By comparison, the plaintiff's advertisement emphasizes that "removes harmful substances" and "14 tatami mats (one room) is effective". In particular, it sells the effect of removing viruses. On the other hand, advertisements of other companies are limited to expressions such as "In addition to those that can be filtered, viruses can also be collected." Apparently, the difference between light and dark is that "removing the virus gives the impression that it has the ability to prevent virus infections to a practical extent." It's not really necessary if you just want to get rid of house dust, but if it's effective in preventing the flu, buy it! The Tokyo High Court would have wanted to say that it might give such a misunderstanding. By the way, this trial was decided in 2002. Even in the present age when Reiwa entered, the effect of air purifiers is controversial, so it is a problem to mention virus removal with air purifiers in the early Heisei period, and in that sense, not only the advertisement of the plaintiff but also the advertisement of other companies. I think there is a high risk of being said to be illegal.
Court stance
Even so, the court's response differs greatly between the two cases. The court is very bullish on the case that the government has decided. please remember. Neither the High Court nor the Supreme Court have ordered an injunction even in such a black chlorella case. I'm running away well. I don't want the courts to challenge the freedom of expression in Article 21 of the Constitution, but I wonder if the administrative organs will take responsibility. Japan is a country with strong administration, isn't it? Discussing its pros and cons is not the subject of this column, so I'll leave it out. I would like to conclude the 3rd session by saying that it is important to look at the judgment of the government office.
Next time preview
By the way, the next case will be the case where a famous home appliance mass retailer X has claimed damages from another company Y in the same industry. It should have been more gross profit than it should have been, but it didn't make a profit because another company made an unjust advertisement. X argued that he should "compensate for the gross profit that he should have obtained" and fought. Here is the Y advertisement in question.・ Our shop is cheaper than Mr. X! !!・ Please let us know if there is any omission in the investigation. I will make it cheaper.・ Disposal products and products that fall below our cost will be sold up to the cost. If you really want all your products to be cheaper than the price set by X, then it's probably fine for advertising. However, it is actually impossible to check all the products of home electronics mass retailers every day and change the price tag every day. In fact, there were times when it was "not cheaper than Mr. X". Is this ad illegal, as it is contrary to the facts? Another thing, what if you advertised that "it will be 10% or more cheaper than the selling price posted on other stores' leaflets"? Please think about it. Thank you for reading this far.