1. Volkswagen’s “Clean Diesel” Emissions Scandal
In one of the most significant false advertising cases in automotive history, Volkswagen marketed certain diesel vehicles between 2009 and 2015 as environmentally friendly and compliant with strict US emissions standards. The core of the deception, however, was the installation of “defeat devices”, software that could detect when a vehicle was undergoing emissions testing and temporarily reduce pollutant output to meet standards. In actual on-road driving conditions, the cars emitted nitrogen oxides at levels far exceeding legal limits. When the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revealed this practice, the resulting scandal led to massive lawsuits, billions of dollars in fines and settlements, and a severe blow to the company’s global reputation for honesty and environmental stewardship.
2. Red Bull’s “Gives You Wings” Claim
For years, the energy drink Red Bull used its iconic slogan, “Red Bull gives you wings,” to imply the beverage could significantly boost performance, concentration, and reaction speed. While consumers generally understood the phrase to be marketing hyperbole, a class-action lawsuit argued that the company’s continuous use of the slogan, coupled with claims of superior performance benefits, was misleading. The plaintiffs argued they did not experience the promised “wings” or the advertised cognitive and physical improvements. In 2014, Red Bull agreed to pay a settlement, which included compensating customers who felt they were misled, proving that even a catchy, fantastical slogan can face legal scrutiny if it implies unsubstantiated objective benefits.
3. Skechers Shape-Ups Shoes for Weight Loss
Skechers marketed its “Shape-Ups” toning shoes with claims that they could help wearers lose weight, tone muscles, and improve posture just by walking, in essence, promising fitness results without needing additional exercise. Advertisements, featuring celebrities, suggested the shoes utilized a “hidden board technology” to activate muscles. The US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) stepped in, stating the company did not possess competent and reliable scientific evidence to support its claims. The settlement required Skechers to pay $40 million to resolve the charges, providing refunds to consumers who purchased the fraudulently marketed footwear, which were sold at a premium price based on these unproven health benefits.
4. Dannon’s Activia Yogurt Immune System Claims
Dannon heavily promoted its Activia yogurt brand, featuring actress Jamie Lee Curtis, with claims that the product’s special bacterial ingredients could regulate digestion and strengthen the immune system, often advertising these benefits as “scientifically” and “clinically” proven. As a result, Activia was sold at a price point roughly 30% higher than regular yogurt. Following numerous consumer complaints and a federal lawsuit, the FTC charged Dannon with false advertising because the company lacked sufficient scientific evidence to support the promised immunity-boosting and digestive health effects beyond that of any other yogurt with live and active cultures. Dannon was ultimately required to pay a $21 million fine to settle the FTC charges and stop making these specific health claims without scientific substantiation.
5. Kellogg’s Frosted Mini-Wheats’ Cognitive Boost
Kellogg’s faced an FTC complaint over an advertising campaign for its Frosted Mini-Wheats cereal, which claimed the product was “clinically shown” to improve a child’s attentiveness, memory, and cognitive function by up to 20%. The FTC found that the company’s clinical study did not support the dramatic 20% improvement claim. Instead, the study allegedly showed only a small number of children, and not a majority, experienced any benefit, and the average improvement was minimal. Kellogg’s was ordered to cease making these specific cognitive claims and agreed to a settlement, demonstrating that advertisers cannot cherry-pick or exaggerate the results of their internal studies to market health-related benefits.
6. Airborne’s Fictitious Cold-Cure Formula
Airborne was famously marketed as a “miracle” dietary supplement developed by a school teacher to ward off germs and cure or prevent the common cold. Its advertisements suggested it was scientifically formulated and tested to boost the immune system and protect against illness. The truth, however, was that the company lacked credible scientific evidence to support its claims. No legitimate, well-conducted clinical trials existed to prove that Airborne could prevent, treat, or cure a cold. Facing multiple class-action lawsuits and a settlement with the FTC, the company was forced to pay millions in refunds and penalties for its unsubstantiated health claims, highlighting the strict requirements for scientific proof in supplement advertising.
7. L’Oréal’s Photoshopped Anti-Aging Perfection
L’Oréal, a giant in the cosmetics industry, ran global advertising campaigns for its anti-aging products, such as its Definity Eye Cream, featuring celebrities whose skin appeared virtually flawless and wrinkle-free. The advertisements were later found to have been heavily digitally retouched, or “photoshopped,” to significantly enhance the models’ appearance beyond the capabilities of the advertised cream. The UK’s Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) ruled that these images were misleading, as they gave consumers a dramatically inaccurate impression of the product’s actual effects. The ASA ultimately banned the ads, sending a clear message that digitally altering an image to misrepresent a cosmetic product’s effectiveness constitutes false advertising.
8. New Balance Toning Shoe Calorie Claims
Similar to Skechers, New Balance also entered the market with “toning sneakers,” which it claimed could help wearers burn a significant number of extra calories. The shoes, advertised with a distinct rocker-bottom sole, purported to increase muscle activation and calorie expenditure. The FTC challenged these claims, asserting that New Balance did not have adequate scientific studies to back up the purported calorie-burning and muscle-toning benefits. In 2011, New Balance settled with the FTC for $2.3 million to resolve the charges. This case reinforced the government’s crackdown on the “toning shoe” phenomenon, establishing that marketing health and fitness benefits requires robust, reliable scientific evidence.
9. The Magic of Oreck Vacuum Cleaners
Oreck, a well-known vacuum cleaner manufacturer, found itself in trouble with the FTC for falsely claiming that its “Forever” vacuum model never needed filter replacement, advertising it as having a “lifetime” primary filter. While the vacuum did contain a lifetime filter, it also had a second, inner filter that needed to be replaced regularly to maintain the product’s optimal performance and prevent potential damage. The omission of this crucial detail in its advertising was deemed deceptive. Oreck was ordered to stop making the “never needs filter replacement” claim and to pay a $750,000 civil penalty for violating the FTC Act, emphasizing that advertisers must disclose all material facts to avoid misleading consumers.
10. Rice Krispies “Immunity-Boosting” Cereal
In a moment of questionable judgment, Kellogg’s also marketed its Rice Krispies cereal with claims that the popular breakfast food could boost children’s immunity, citing “antioxidants and nutrients” in the product. These claims were especially prominent during the 2009 H1N1 flu outbreak. The FTC took action, arguing that there was no scientific basis to support the claim that Rice Krispies could deliver the immune-system support advertised. Kellogg’s agreed to drop the “immunity” claims in a settlement with the FTC, which found the company’s assertions went beyond legal “puffery” and into the realm of unsubstantiated health benefits, especially concerning vulnerable consumer groups like children.
11. Gwyneth Paltrow’s Goop Jade Egg Health Claims
The lifestyle brand Goop, founded by actress Gwyneth Paltrow, faced legal action from the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office for making unsubstantiated health claims about several of its products. A notable example was the “Jade Egg,” which Goop advertised as improving women’s health, including balancing hormones and regulating menstrual cycles when inserted vaginally. The company marketed these products with dramatic health benefits without possessing any credible scientific or medical evidence to support the claims. Goop agreed to pay a $145,000 civil penalty and issue refunds to customers, illustrating the consequences of promoting health products with claims not backed by established scientific or medical consensus.
12. POM Wonderful’s Fictional Disease Cures
POM Wonderful, the producer of pomegranate juice and related products, was a repeat offender in making sweeping health claims. The company ran an aggressive advertising campaign suggesting that its juice could treat, prevent, or reduce the risk of heart disease, prostate cancer, and erectile dysfunction. The FTC challenged the ads, asserting that they falsely conveyed that the claims were scientifically proven. After a lengthy legal battle, the FTC ordered POM Wonderful to stop making any disease-related claims unless they were supported by competent and reliable scientific evidence, which typically requires human clinical trials. The case was a major win for the FTC in its efforts to hold food and beverage companies to a high standard for health-benefit claims.
13. Classmates.com’s Misleading Reunion Emails
The social networking site Classmates.com used a “bait-and-switch” tactic by sending emails to millions of users with the subject line, “Your Classmate Has Posted a New Story,” or a similar phrase implying a long-lost friend was trying to reconnect. To read the message or find the supposed classmate, users were prompted to upgrade to a “Gold” paid membership. Many users who paid for the upgrade found that the promised reunion was often non-existent or the “message” was a generic notification. The state of Washington sued the company, which agreed to a $9.5 million settlement, underscoring that using emotional appeals to drive paid subscriptions through false pretenses is a form of deceptive marketing.
14. Snapple’s “All Natural” Beverage Line
Snapple marketed its line of beverages as “All Natural” for years, implying their ingredients were purely derived from natural sources. However, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) and consumers filed lawsuits after discovering that Snapple products contained high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS), which is made through a complex industrial process, and a food additive called malic acid. The plaintiffs argued that these ingredients were not “natural” as reasonably understood by consumers. Snapple eventually settled the lawsuits, agreeing to remove the “All Natural” phrase from its labels and change the formulas for some drinks, reinforcing the idea that terms like “natural” must have a verifiable definition to avoid misleading the public.
15. Listerine’s “Cures Colds and Sore Throats”
Decades ago, Listerine was not only advertised as a mouthwash but also as a preventative and cure for colds and sore throats. Ads in the mid-20th century prominently displayed claims that the product could eliminate “more than 20,000 germs in the mouth” that caused colds. In 1975, the FTC stepped in, after over 50 years of this claim, requiring the company to run corrective advertisements stating that Listerine “will not help prevent colds or sore throats or lessen their severity.” This landmark case in advertising law established the precedent for the FTC to demand corrective action when a long-standing claim is proven to be false or unsubstantiated, even in the realm of health.
The history of advertising is filled with moments where the desire for sales overcame a commitment to the truth. While some exaggerations are clearly harmless “puffery,” the cases where companies made concrete, unsupported claims about health, performance, or ingredients led to serious legal and financial consequences. These examples serve as a powerful reminder that in the end, transparency and honesty are the only sustainable foundation for consumer trust.
This story 15 Times Advertisers Lied So Outrageously It’s Hard to Believe was first published on Daily FETCH
