P

a
g
e
1

LAW MANTRATHINK BEYOND OTHERS
(National Monthly Journal, I.S.S.N 2321-6417)


Decepti ve Adverti si ng wi th Puffery as a defense

*Vasundhara Kanoria
Student of Institute of Law,Nirma University.

I NTRODUCTI ON:
A very rudi mentary understandi ng of fal se and mi sl eadi ng adverti si ng i n
I ndi a i s the mi srepresentati on, omi ssi on or practi ce used i n adverti si ng
that woul d affect the deci si on of a reasonabl e consumer. But i t i s not that
si mpl e to understand decepti on. As Gardener states i n hi s study, what i s
decepti on? I s a l i e that vi rtual l y everyone recogni zes as a l i e decepti ve?
Conversel y, i s an adverti sement that contai ns no l i teral l i es but that
resul ts i n decepti ve percepti ons decepti ve?
1
There are many defi ni ti ons of
decepti ve adverti si ng that draws i nformati on from fi el ds l i ke soci ol ogy,
psychol ogy, ethi cs and moral i ty etc, these defi ni ti ons are di fferent from
the l egal defi ni ti on. The exi sti ng l egal defi ni ti on i s found l acki ng as i t
prescri pti ve rather than proscri pti ve
2
Then there has al so been a growi ng
awareness of consumer ri ghts that has shi fted the onus of the the-buyer-
beware (caveat emptor) i deol ogy to the sel l ers-shoul d-make-aware . I n
thi s growi ng consumer centri c market pl ace the defense of puffery seems
anachroni sti c. Puffery i s when a sel l er prai ses i n general terms, wi thout
speci fi c content or reference to facts, buyers are expected to do and
understand that are not enti tl ed to rel y l i teral l y upon words
3
I van Preston
contends that, Puffery i s l egal i zed l yi ng i n market pl ace-soft core
decepti on.
4
Whi l e, the courts contend that puffery i s a mere exaggerati on
that no ordi nary customer wi l l take seri ousl y.fal se- adverti si ng
authori ti es assume i t i s possi bl e to di sti ngui sh factual from nonfactual

1
Deception i n Advertising: A Conceptual ApproachAuthor(s): David M. GardnerSource:
J ournal of Marketi ng
2
Supra.
3
From restatement of l aw of tort,para 542,tentati ve draft 110
4
I van L Preston,The great Ameri can Blow Up:Puffery in Advertising and Sell i ng

P
a
g
e
2

speech by l ooki ng at the speech i tsel f.
5
So what i s the decepti ve
adverti si ng and i s puffery a j usti fi abl e defense i n mi sl eadi ng adverti si ng
or i s i t l egal i zed l yi ng

A market economy rel i es on the i nteracti on between the buyer and sel l er,
thi s i nteracti on i s vi tal for sustenance of the economy. The l aw does i ts
utmost to ensure that thi s i nteracti on i s moral and ethi cal and there i s no
expl oi tati on of ei ther of the parti es i nvol ved. The sel l er tri es to
i nfl uence, attract and draw the consumer towards i ts products.
Adverti si ng i s one of the tool s wi el ded by the sel l er. Adverti si ng-sel l i ng
i n one form or another - serves to faci l i tate thi s process of matchi ng
products wi th consumers.
6
Si nce, Adverti si ng di ssemi nates i mportant
i nformati on to the publ i c and has far reachi ng effects on one s psyche
7
i t
becomes i mperati ve for the government to i ntervene and ensure that an
overzeal ous sel l er i s not handi ng out wrong i nformati on and expl oi ti ng
the consumer. The peopl e are annual l y robbed of mi l l i ons of dol l ars by
fal se and mi sl eadi ng adverti sements that appear i n the peri odi cal s
8
I n the
earl i er days the onus l i ed on the consumer to be skepti cal about the
products and protect hi msel f from such decepti on. The L ati n maxi m
caveat emptor or buyer- beware gi ves credence to such perspecti ve
where the buyer has to be i ntel l i gent enough and take acti ve measures to
protect hi msel f from such decepti on and expl oi tati on. Tradi ti onal l y,
courts have been qui te l eni ent and have tended to hol d that the consumer
shoul d have exami ned the goods i n questi on more adequatel y or that the
adverti sements merel y represented "matters of opi ni on" and shoul d have
been treated wi th skepti ci sm.
9
But wi th the growi ng awareness of

5
Davi d A. Hoffman. "The Best Puffery Arti cl e Ever" I owa Law Revi ew 91.5 (2006): 1395-
1448.Avai l able at: http://works.bepress.com/hoffman/6


6
Devel opments in the Law: Decepti ve Adverti singSource: Harvard Law Review, Vol . 80,
No. 5 (Mar., 1967), pp. 1005-1163Publi shed by: The Harvard Law Revi ew Associ ationStabl e
URL: http://www.j stor.org/stabl e/1339339 .
7
Anuradha Sal otra, Beware I ndia s comparati ve adverti sing
http://hei nonl i ne.org/HOL/Landi ngPage?handl e=hein.j ournal s/mani ntpr194&div=13&id=&pag
e=
8
I denti fyi ng Misl eadi ng Adverti sing
J . Edward Russo, Barbara L. Metcal f and Debra Stephens
J ournal of Consumer Research
Vol . 8, No. 2 (Sep., 1981), pp. 119-131
Publ ished by: The Uni versi ty of Chi cago Press
Arti cl e Stabl e URL:http://www.j stor.org/stabl e/2488823
9
Decepti on i n Adverti sing: A Conceptual ApproachAuthor(s): David M. GardnerSource:
J ournal of Marketi ng, Vol . 39, No. 1 (J an., 1975), pp. 40-4Publ ished by: Ameri can Marketi ng
Associ ati onStabl e URL: http://www.j stor.org/stabl e/1250801 .Accessed: 31/03/2014 04:58

P
a
g
e
3

consumer ri ghts, the l aws have become consumer centri c pl aci ng the onus
back on the sel l ers. Thi s growi ng awareness of consumer protecti on
j uri sprudence has meant that consumer i s as much a stake hol der as the
sel l er.
10
An adverti sement i s consi dered decepti ve i f i t communi cates
facts-by statement, i mpl i cati on, or omi ssi on-that di ffer from the real i ty of
the si tuati on and affect buyi ng behavi or to consumers ' detri ment.
11

Decepti on i s now, anal yzed by soci al sci enti sts, l awyers and
phi l osophers al i ke, and focuses enti rel y on the consumer's vi ewpoi nt to
the negl ect of that of the decei vi ng adverti ser.
12
So there has been a
paradi gm shi ft from consumer-beware phi l osophy to buyer- make
aware phi l osophy. I n thi s growi ng consumer centri c economy the
government ensures that consumer ri ghts are protected and preserved.
Thi s paper i s pri mari l y goi ng to focus on decepti ve adverti si ng and the
governmental i nterventi on i n thi s aspect of consumer protecti on l aws.
There i s a l ot of confusi on as to what qual i fi es as decepti on and how i s i t
di fferent from mi sl eadi ng. Decepti ve i s restri cted to the i ntent of the
buyer where as Mi sl eadi ng i s broader i n scope because i t i ncl udes not
onl y the source effects but al so the recei vers bei ng l ed astray by hi s own
thought processes of whi ch the message source i s i nnocent
13
Whi l e one
real i zes the di fference between decepti ve and mi sl eadi ng, the meani ng of
decepti ve sti l l remai ns uncl ear. As Gardner asked, Fi rst, what i s
decepti on? I s a l i e that vi rtual l y everyone recogni zes as a l i e decepti ve?
Conversel y, i s an adverti sement that contai ns no l i teral l i es but that
resul ts i n decepti ve percepti ons decepti ve?
14
Whi l e there i s an ongoi ng
debate on what i s decepti ve adverti si ng and how to stop, most peopl e
agree that decepti ve adverti si ng i s bad and needs to stopped. I t i s al so
bel i eved that decepti on not necessari l y i nvol ves decei t as a del i berate act.

10
P.gokhal e S.dutta,comparative adverti si ng i n I ndi a,evolving a regul atory framework
11
I s Adverti si ng Puffery Bel i eved?Author(s): Herbert J . Rotfel d and Ki m B. Rotzol lSource:
J ournal of Adverti si ng, Vol . 9, No. 3 (1980), pp. 16-20+45Publ i shed by: Tayl or & Franci s,
Ltd.Stabl e URL: http://www.j stor.org/stable/4188316 .
12
What's Wrong wi th "Decepti ve" Advertisi ng?Author(s): Dani el AttasSource: J ournal of
Busi ness Ethi cs, Vol . 21, No. 1 (Aug., 1999), pp. 49-59Publ ished by: Spri ngerStabl e URL:
http://www.j stor.org/stabl e/25074154 .Accessed: 31/03/2014 04:49
13
A Comment on "Defi ning Mi sl eadi ng Adverti si ng" and "Decepti on in Adverti sing"
I van L. Preston
J ournal of Marketi ng
Vol . 40, No. 3 (J ul ., 1976), pp. 54-57
Publ ished by: Ameri can Marketing Associ ation
Arti cl e Stabl e URL:http://www.j stor.org/stabl e/1249995
http://www.j stor.org/discover/10.2307/1249995?uid=3738256&ui d=2134&ui d=2475292467&u
i d=2&uid=70&ui d=3&ui d=2475292457&uid=60&si d=21103727859631
14
Deception in Adverti si ng: A Conceptual ApproachAuthor(s): Davi d M. GardnerSource:
J ournal of Marketi ng, Vol . 39, No. 1 (J an., 1975), pp. 40-46Publi shed by: Ameri can
Marketi ng Associ ati onStabl e URL: http://www.jstor.org/stabl e/1250801 .

P
a
g
e
4

Thi s bei ng so one cannot take for granted that whatever i s wrong wi th
decei t must al so be wrong wi th 'decepti ve adverti si ng.
15
Contrary to thi s
opi ni on whi ch argues for the di fference between decei t and decepti on and
that contends that decepti on cannot be pri ma faci l y consi dered to be
moral l y and ethi cal l y wrong as decei t and decepti on are not the same. But
as menti oned earl i er there i s a growi ng awareness of consumer ri ghts and
the fact that mi sl eadi ng adverti sements may not be a del i berate pl oy of
the producer or sel l er does not real l y cut i t. But before we del ve further
i nto the l egal perspecti ve on decepti ve adverti si ng we shoul d focus on
why i s i t so preval ent i n the soci ety. As i ts sai d about adverti si ng that,
Y our most i mportant j ob i n i s to deci de what you are goi ng to say about
your product, what benefi t you are goi ng to promi se."
16
When your sal es
are di rectl y af fected by the promi ses you make i n your adverti sements
many sel l ers tend to over i ndul ge themsel ves and transgress the boundary
of l aw by gi vi ng out ri ghtl y wrong i nformati on. Thi s i s easy and thi s i s
puni shabl e by l aw. But the gray area i n these l aws comes when the sel l er
i ndul ges i n hyperbol es and over exaggerati ons. Thi s hyper-bol e i n
procl ai mi ng the vi rtues of a product i s an accepted techni que.
17
And thi s
paper i s goi ng to pri mari l y focus on whether these hyperbol es
18
are
acceptabl e.

What are the l aws agai nst decepti ve adverti si ng i n I ndi a?
Whi l e decepti on protecti on l aws are i mperati ve i n any country they
become al l the more i mportant i n a country l i ke I ndi a as the maj ori ty of
the consumers are uneducated and i l l i terate. Thi s makes them vul nerabl e
to mani pul ati on, suggesti bi l i ty and persuasi on used commonl y i n
adverti sements. So when we speci fi cal l y tal k about puffery used as a
defense agai nst fal se and mi sl eadi ng adverti si ng, i t i s often contended
that peopl e can di scern the di fference between truth and mere puffs. So
consi deri ng the demographi c of I ndi an popul ati on does thi s argument sti l l

15
What's Wrong wi th "Decepti ve" Advertising?Author(s): Dani el AttasSource: J ournal of
Busi ness Ethi cs, Vol . 21, No. 1 (Aug., 1999), pp. 49-59Publ ished by: Spri ngerStabl e URL:
http://www.j stor.org/stabl e/25074154 .Accessed: 31/03/2014
16
D. OGI LVY , CONFESSI ONS OF AN ADVERTI SI NG MAN 93 (i963)
17
Organi zations such as Consumer's Uni on attempt to provide consumers wi th information
concerning comparative qual i ty and value, but thei r i mpact i n thi s country has been sl i ght.
See Kal dor, The Economi c Aspects of Adverti si ng, I 8 REV. ECON. STUwi S X, 5-6 (I 949).
18
Puffery i s referred to as exaggerati ons acc to Defi nition of Puffery;
http://di cti onary.reference.com/browse/puffery

P
a
g
e
5

work i n I ndi an context? I f not i sn t i t a vi ol ati on of one s consumer
ri ghts.
But before we proceed further l et s l ook i nto the l egal defi ni ti on of
decepti ve adverti si ng i n I ndi a,
Unfai r trade practi ce means a trade practi ce whi ch, for the purpose of
promoti ng the sal e, use or suppl y of any goods or for the provi si ons of
any servi ces, adopts any unfai r method or unfai r or decepti ve practi ce
i ncl udi ng any of the fol l owi ng practi ces, namel y :- (1) the practi ce of
maki ng any statement, whether oral l y or i n wri ti ng or by vi si bl e
representati on whi ch, -(i ) fal sel y represents that the goods are of a
parti cul ar standard, qual i ty, quanti ty, grade, composi ti on, styl e or
model ;(i i ) fal sel y represents that the servi ces are of a parti cul ar standard,
qual i ty or grade;(vi ) makes a fal se or mi sl eadi ng representati on
concerni ng the need for, or the useful ness of, any goods or servi ces;(x)
gi ves fal se or mi sl eadi ng facts di sparagi ng the goods, servi ces or trade of
another person.
19

Whi l e under thi s act i t s accepted that fal se representati on of goods
20

comes under the ambi t of Unfai r Trade Practi ces, I ndi a.
21
As per the l aw
i t s i s unl awful for the manufacturer or sel l er to gi ve out wrong
i nformati on that mi ght be mi sl eadi ng or mi srepresenti ng the goods or
servi ces. Then how i s puffery j usti fi ed? Or what i s the l egal rati onal e that
expl ai ns the concept of puffery? Wel l one argument gi ven i s that i n a
market pl ace a consumer expects exaggerati ons and hyperbol es so he does
not take i t seri ousl y. And si nce puffery i s not bel i eved, i t s not
mi sl eadi ng or decepti ve i n nature and hence i t can be j usti fi ed. The whol e
l ogi c of thi s argument l i es i n the presupposi ti on that a rati onal consumer
can di scri mi nate between mere puffs and the truth. Thi s al so does not take
i nto account that there mi ght be subtl e or sub-consci ous mani festati ons of
puffery that a consumer hi msel f mi ght not be abl e recogni ze. And i f i t s
true that puffery does affect the consumer psyche then does thi s not
i nfri nge hi s consumer ri ghts as stated i n the Unfai r Trade Practi ces Act,
under Monopol i es and Trade Restri cti ve Pol i ci es Act? But before the
l egal rami fi cati ons of puffery are consi dered i t becomes i mperati ve to
understand what i s puffery.


19
Monopoli es and trade restri ctive pol i cies Act,1968 I ndi a
20
Supra.
21
Supra

P
a
g
e
6

What i s puffery?
Puff: . . . 'twas I fi rst enri ched thei r styl e - 'twas I fi rst taught
them to crowd thei r adverti sements wi th panegyri cal superl ati ves, each
epi thet ri si ng above the other . . .. From me they l earned to i nl ay thei r
pkraseol ogy wi th vari egated chi ps of exoti c metaphor: by me too thei r
i nventi ve facul ti es were cal l ed forth: yes, si r, by me they were i n-structed
to cl othe i deal wal l s wi th gratui tous frui ts - to i nsi nuate obsequi ous
ri vul ets i nto vi si onary groves . Thi s, si r, i s . . . the art of puffi ng .... R.
B. Sheri dan, The Cri ti c, Act
22

I n common parl ance puffery i s defi ned as publ i ci ty or accl ai m
that i s ful l
of undue or exaggerated prai se
23
Puffery i s usual l y statements that
i ncl ude hyperbol es and exaggerati on to the poi nt that i t i s assumed that
everyone can di scern that i t i s mere exaggerati on. Opi ni on and puffery
encompass a "sal es tal k i n promoti ng a sal e" and statements that serve "to
'hype' product beyond obj ecti ve proof.
24
Puffery i s when a sel l er prai ses
i n general terms, wi thout speci fi c content or reference to facts, buyers are
expected to do and understand that are not enti tl ed to rel y l i teral l y upon
words
25
Puffery al so i ncl udes the harml ess exaggerati ons that are
expressi ons of opi ni on rather than cl ai ms of some obj ecti ve qual i ty or
characteri sti c of the product. For exampl e, even the most gul l i bl e
consumer i s consi dered capabl e of grappl i ng wi th the fact that such
statements as "the best of i ts ki nd," "the most beauti ful ," or "the fi nest"
mi ght not be l i teral l y true.... Consumers who buy "the funni est book you
ever read" can expect to be amused, but they real l y don't expect the
adverti ser to be abl e to prove the superl ati ve
26
When puffery i s menti oned
i n context wi th decepti ve adverti si ng, i t i s used as a defense by the
manufactures when they prai se thei r products i n an exaggerated sense.
The purpose of fal se- adverti si ng l aw i s to ensure that consumers recei ve

22
Developments i n the Law: Decepti ve Adverti si ngSource: Harvard Law Revi ew, Vol . 80,
No. 5 (Mar., 1967), pp. 1005-1163Publi shed by: The Harvard Law Revi ew Associ ationStabl e
URL: http://www.j stor.org/stabl e/1339339 .Accessed: 31/03/2014 04:59
23
Defi ni ti on of Puffery; http://di cti onary.reference.
com/browse/puffery
24
RAM INTERNATIONAL Vs. ADT SECURITY SERVICES (04.02.2014 - FEST)
25
From restatement of l aw of tort,para 542,tentati ve draft 110
26
I s Adverti si ng Puffery Bel i eved?Author(s): Herbert J . Rotfel d and Ki m B. Rotzol lSource:
J ournal of Adverti si ng, Vol . 9, No. 3 (1980), pp. 16-20+45Publ i shed by: Tayl or & Franci s,
Ltd.Stabl e URL: http://www.j stor.org/stable/4188316 .Accessed: 31/03/2014 05:38


P
a
g
e
7

accurate i nformati on about products and servi ces that are bei ng sol d
27
And
when puffery i s offered as a defense to manufacturers to get away wi th
superl ati ve statements even when i ts true i s i n contradi cti on wi th thi s
growi ng consumer centri c j uri sprudence. Courts bel i eve that bad
consumpti on happens when consumers purchase somethi ng as a resul t of
bel i evi ng fal se facts stated or i mpl i ed by commerci al speech. Good
consumpti on i s purchasi ng i n the absence of fal se facts.
28
Through the
medi a, adverti sers provi de i nformati on to consumers so that they can
make meani ngful choi ces and for that reason, mi sl eadi ng i nformati on can
be dangerous to the consumer
29
And when goods are prai sed to the poi nt
of untruth, the resul t i s not i nformed, i ntel l i gent choi ce, but rather i ts
[si c] perversi on; there i s no choi ce when sel ecti on i s a functi on of
competi ng untruths, decei ts, and mi sl eadi ng compari sons.
30
The puffery
defense i n fal se-adverti si ng cases protects accused defendant speakers
whose speech i s not factual , i .e., i s of a type capabl e of bei ng
fal si fi ed
31
The questi on of fal si fi abi l i ty i s one of l aw, and courts and
regul ators routi nel y deci de puffery probl ems by arti cul ati ng a l i ne
between fal si fi abl e and non-fal si fi abl e speech.
32
I ndi an courts have
tradi ti onal l y al l owed adverti sers ampl e l eeway when maki ng puff
statements
33

For exampl e i n The pri nci pl es, as stated i n the case of Rec ki t t & Col eman
of Ind i a Lt d v Ki wi TTK Lt d (63 (1996) DL T 29), are as fol l ows: An
adverti sement can decl are that the adverti sed goods are the best i n the
worl d, even though thi s decl arati on i s untrue; An adverti sement can state
that the adverti sed goods are better than those of competi tors, even i f thi s
statement i s untrue;
34
What preci sel y i s the l aw on thi s poi nt? I t i s a
bl i ndi ng gl i mpse of the obvi ous to say that there must be a di vi di ng l i ne

27
J ean Wegman Burns, Confused J urisprudence: Fal se Adverti si ng Under the Lanham Act,
79 B.U. L. REV. 807, 875 (1999) (offeri ng the princi pal purposes of l aws that restrict fal se
advertising).
28 Davi d A. Hoffman. "The Best Puffery Arti cl e Ever" I owa Law Revi ew 91.5 (2006): 1395-
1448.
Avail able at: http://works.bepress.com/hoffman/6
29
Earl W. Ki ntner, Federal Trade Commi ssi on Regul ati on of Adverti sing, 64 MI CH. L. REV.
1269, 1272 (1966).
30
30 Davi d A. Hoffman. "The Best Puffery Arti cl e Ever" I owa Law Revi ew 91.5 (2006):
1395-1448.
Avail able at: http://works.bepress.com/hoffman/6
31
I van Preston, The Defi ni tion of Decepti veness i n Advertising and Other Commerci al
Speech, 39 CATH. U. L. REV. 1035, 104041 (1990)
32
Supra 19
33
Comparative adverti si ng i n I ndia
puff under scruti ny
Luthra & Luthra Law Offi ces December/J anuary 2010 World Trademark Review
34
I bid

P
a
g
e
8

between statements that are acti onabl e and those whi ch are not; and the
sol e questi on of a dry poi nt of l aw such as we are di scussi ng here i s;
where does the l i ne l i e? On the one hand, i t appears to me that the l aw i s
that any trader i s enti tl ed to puff hi s own goods, even though such puff
must, as a matter of pure l ogi c, i nvol ve the deni grati on of hi s ri val 's
goods. Thus i n the wel l known case of the three adj oi ni ng tai l ors who put
noti ces i n thei r respecti ve wi ndows readi ng: 'The best tai l or i n the worl d',
'The best tai l or i n thi s town', and 'The best tai l or i n thi s street', none of
the three commi tted an acti onabl e offence."
35

But The Madras Hi gh Court observed that:Recogni zi ng the ri ght of
producers to puff thei r own products even wi th untrue cl ai ms,but wi thout
deni grati ng or sl anderi ng each other s products, woul d be to de-
recogni ze the ri ghts of the consumers guaranteed under the Consumer
Protecti on Act 1986.
36
But sti l l generi c puffery that does not di sparage i ts
competi tor i s al l owed. Ul ti matel y, a successful puffer wi l l be one
whose statements fl i rt both wi th an appropri ate amount of si nceri ty
towards thei r consumer whi l e al so i ncorporati ng extreme, outrageous
exaggerati ons that are sure to grab the consumer s attenti on
37


Fi rst, why i s puffery used by adverti sers? I t i s presumed to be non-
decepti ve because i t i s not bel i eved, but i f puffery i s not bel i eved, i t
woul d have no effect and therefore woul d not be used. Second, can i t be
determi ned from l ooki ng at the l i teral content of an ad whether consumers
readi l y recogni ze the exaggerati ons that are l egal l y pre-sumed to be so
obvi ous?
38
The l egal l ogi c presumes consumers expect exaggerati ons and
i nfl ated cl ai ms i n adverti si ng and therefore "know" puffery statements are
not to be bel i eved as l i teral facts.
39



35
Colgate-Palmolive (India) Limited vs. Anchor Health and Beauty Care Private Ltd.
(04.09.2008 - MADHC)
36
I bid 28
37
The Worl d s Most Trusted
Arti cl e on Puffery:
Non-Acti onabl e Puffery or Misleading?
by Abhi shek K. Gurnani and Ashi sh R. Tal at i
38
I s Advertising Puffery Beli eved?Author(s): Herbert J . Rotfel d and Ki m B. Rotzol l Source:
J ournal of Adverti si ng, Vol . 9, No. 3 (1980), pp. 16-20+45Publ i shed by: Tayl or & Franci s,
Ltd.Stabl e URL: http://www.j stor.org/stable/4188316 .Accessed: 31/03/2014 05:38
39
I s Advertising Puffery Beli eved?Author(s): Herbert J . Rotfel d and Ki m B. Rotzol l Source:
J ournal of Adverti si ng, Vol . 9, No. 3 (1980), pp. 16-20+45Publ i shed by: Tayl or & Franci s,
Ltd.Stabl e URL: http://www.j stor.org/stable/4188316 .Accessed: 31/03/2014 05:38

P
a
g
e
9

I s puffery not bel i eved at al l ?I n a research paper wri tten by Herbert J .
Rotfel d and Ki m B. Rotzol l Source they contend that Al though the i m-
pl i cati ons from the puffs, overal l , were noted as true by rel ati vel y smal l
proporti ons of respondents, any consumer bel i ef of such cl ai ms
contradi cts the l egal l ogi c and i ts as-sumpti ons.
40
Puffs were
communi cated to l arge numbers of respondents, and i f fal se, woul d easi l y
be seen as possessi ng a potenti al to decei ve i f they di d not have spe-ci al
l egal exempti on from such consi derati on. Contrary to the l ogi c behi nd
thi s exempti on, puffs were noted as true by l arge numbers of respondents,
suggesti ng that respondents mi ght have thought such cl ai ms were l i teral l y
true.
41
So taki ng i n5o account thi s extensi ve study and others i t shows that
there are consequences of puffs and even i f the l i teral puffs aren t taken
seri ousl y there are i mpl i cati ons that are consi dered and thi s i mpl i es that
there i s some consequence of the puf f on the counsumer psyche and i t
does i nfl uence the consumer behavi or.


Concl usi on:
Wi th the growi ng consumer centri c j uri sprudence, the maxi m caveat
emptor seems anachroni sti c as the l aws now pl ace the onus on the sel l ers
rather than the buyers. To uphol d consumer ri ghts, I ndi a has many
consumer protecti on l aws. One of these ri ghts i ncl udes the ri ght of the
consumer to be dul y i nformed of the qual i ty, durabi l i ty, grade of the
product so bought. Thi s i ncl udes that there be l aws checki ng the
mi srepresentati on and decepti on i n adverti si ng. As adverti si ng has a
di rect correl ati on wi th consumer psyche and behavi or, i t becomes
i mperati ve for the l aw to i ntervene and ensure that the adverti sements are
not mi sl eadi ng, fal se, decepti ve or mi srepresentati ve. Whi l e i n thi s
consumer centri c market the defense of puffery i s extended to
manufactures or sel l ers that gi ves them l eeway to get away wi th fal se and
decepti ve adverti si ng. Then how i s puf fery j usti fi ed? Or what i s the l egal
rati onal e that expl ai ns the concept of puffery? Wel l one argument gi ven i s
that i n a market pl ace a consumer expects exaggerati ons and hyperbol es
so he does not take i t seri ousl y. And si nce puffery i s not bel i eved, i t s
not mi sl eadi ng or decepti ve i n nature and hence i t can be j usti fi ed. The
whol e l ogi c of thi s argument l i es i n the presupposi ti on that a rati onal

40
Supra.
41
Supra

P
a
g
e
1
0

consumer can di scri mi nate between mere puffs and the truth. Thi s al so
does not take i nto account that there mi ght be subtl e or sub-consci ous
mani festati ons of puffery that a consumer hi msel f mi ght not be abl e
recogni ze. And i f i t s true that puffery does affect the consumer psyche
then does thi s not i nfri nge hi s consumer ri ghts as stated i n the Unfai r
Trade Practi ces Act, under Monopol i es and Trade Restri cti ve Pol i ci es
Act? I van Preston contended that, Puffery i s l egal i zed l yi ng i n market
pl ace-soft core decepti on.
42
I n studi es and empi ri cal researches
conducted by psychol ogi sts and researchers i t has been found that puffery
does have the abi l i ty to i nfl uence consumer behavi or. Thi s i tsel f negates
the l egal l ogi c that a consumer expects puffery and hence he does not take
i t seri ousl y. And when we tal k about a country l i ke I ndi a puffery i s
permi ssi bl e even though i t resul ts i n extol l i ng the vi rtues of one s own
goods- whi ch may not be qui te i n accord wi th real i ty
43
Whi l e decepti on
protecti on l aws are i mperati ve i n any country they become al l the more
i mportant i n a country l i ke I ndi a as the maj ori ty of the consumers are
uneducated and i l l i terate. Thi s makes them vul nerabl e to mani pul ati on,
suggesti bi l i ty and persuasi on used commonl y i n adverti sements. So when
we speci fi cal l y tal k about puffery used as a defense agai nst fal se and
mi sl eadi ng adverti si ng, i t i s often contended that peopl e can di scern the
di fference between truth and mere puffs. So consi deri ng the demographi c
of I ndi an popul ati on does thi s argument sti l l work i n I ndi an context? I f
not i sn t i t a vi ol ati on of one s consumer ri ghts. As per the l aw i t s i s
unl awful for the manufacturer or sel l er to gi ve out wrong i nformati on that
mi ght be mi sl eadi ng or mi srepresenti ng the goods or servi ces.








42
I van L Preston,The great Ameri can Bl ow Up:Puffery in Adverti si ng and Sell ing
43
Dabur India Ltd. vs. Colortek Meghalaya Pvt. Ltd. (04.12.2009 - DELHC)


P
a
g
e
1
1