Question

Eliza took her car to her regular mechanic, who had a private business. The mechanic often advertised on billboards, writing "Reliable fixes
and low costs" and "The cheapest prices." After getting her engine checked, she incurred over $2,000 in costs. Out of curiosity, she went to
a competing private firm that also fixed cars, and the private firm said that she paid significantly more to her mechanic than the costs of both
the parts and labor. Eliza sued her mechanic, alleging that she had been misled by her mechanics advertisements. The court applied the
Central Hudson test, and found the mechanic’s advertisements were misleading. The mechanic argued that pursuant to his first amendment
rights, his speech was protected, especially because they were generalizations that should not have been taken literally. The court ruled in
favor of Eliza, ordering the mechanic to pay Eliza for damages and to take the advertisements down.

But what if the facts of the case were different? Select the appropriate set of facts below that would change the outcome of the case.

a) The court found that the advertisements were not inherently misleading. However, it did find that regulating the advertisement in question
was more extensive than necessary to protect the public interest.

b) The court found that the advertising in question constituted commercial speech.

c) The court found that the advertisements in question did not advance the state’s interest.

d) The court finds that the speech in the advertisements is not misleading, but that the state’s interest would be advanced if the advertising in question were restricted

Answer 1

Answer: a) The court found that the advertisements were not inherently misleading. However, it did find that regulating the advertisement in question was more extensive than necessary to protect the public interest.

Explanation: An advertisement is a notice or action promoting a product or service and soliciting patronage.

When there is no regulation of an advert, abuse is expected. Protecting the public interest is important as advertisement may be misleading if there are no extensive rules.

In a situation whereby the mechanics advertisement was found not to be inherently misleading, a different verdict may have been given.

Answer 2

Answer:

a) The court found that the advertisements were not inherently misleading. However, it did find that regulating the advertisement in question  was more extensive than necessary to protect the public interest.

Explanation:

The circumstances seemed distinct and by endorsing Eliza the court handed down a decision. However it is up to consumers to continue with ads or otherwise, which relies on their conscience.

Because while the purpose of an advertisement would be to make the people and encourage individuals to view it or listening to it.

This doesn't mean that everything in the image is honest and truthful and most of the time it's generic statements or vague generalizations.

In this respect, I assume that the important set of circumstances is: the court found that the ads were not intrinsically deceptive.

Nevertheless, it did find that the advertising in question was limited.