"Consumers need to be protected from companies that make deceptive claims in their advertising. However company should always be allowed to make trurhful claims, even if those claim could be misundeerstood by some consumers."
The issue expressed by the author seems to suggest that deceptive claims made by companies in their advertising should not be allowed. Although some might claim that restricting freedom of expression is a crime in itself, in my view selectively restricting the claims will protect consumers from getting misguided by those deceptive claims. This essay cites few reason to support my view point.
The main reason for my view is that the claims made in advertising has a directly relation to consumer behaviour. Some claims can convince a consumer to buy that particular product. It is quite possible that sometimes a deceptive claim made by a company can lure consumer in buying a product and after purchasing consumer might realize that he has purchased a wrong product. Therefore it is neccessary to restrict such claims which can misguide consumer in making wrong purchase decision.
I also agree with the view that companies should always be allowed to make truthful claims. This would ensure that they have freedom of expression and the information provided by them would be authentic so that customer can use the information to make purchase decision. There is a possibilty that some of these claims could be misunderstood by the consumer. But edcuating customer is a better option than altogether restricting the truthful claims made in advertisement.
Yet, the opponents of selective restriction of claims would say that even selective restricting is same as restriciting freedom of speech. However, it is important to understand that if by selectively restricting the claims entire society on a whole is benefitted than it should be encouraged.
On the whole, it can be said that regulating claims made by companies in advertising will help in protecting the interests of the consumers as explained by the above mentioned reasons.
The issue expressed by the author seems to suggest that deceptive claims made by companies in their advertising should not be allowed. Although some might claim that restricting freedom of expression is a crime in itself, in my view selectively restricting the claims will protect consumers from getting misguided by those deceptive claims. This essay cites few reason to support my view point.
The main reason for my view is that the claims made in advertising has a directly relation to consumer behaviour. Some claims can convince a consumer to buy that particular product. It is quite possible that sometimes a deceptive claim made by a company can lure consumer in buying a product and after purchasing consumer might realize that he has purchased a wrong product. Therefore it is neccessary to restrict such claims which can misguide consumer in making wrong purchase decision.
I also agree with the view that companies should always be allowed to make truthful claims. This would ensure that they have freedom of expression and the information provided by them would be authentic so that customer can use the information to make purchase decision. There is a possibilty that some of these claims could be misunderstood by the consumer. But edcuating customer is a better option than altogether restricting the truthful claims made in advertisement.
Yet, the opponents of selective restriction of claims would say that even selective restricting is same as restriciting freedom of speech. However, it is important to understand that if by selectively restricting the claims entire society on a whole is benefitted than it should be encouraged.
On the whole, it can be said that regulating claims made by companies in advertising will help in protecting the interests of the consumers as explained by the above mentioned reasons.
