A Consumer Protection and Employment Law Firm Serving California, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Illinois.

How can a claim of false advertising be proven?

Table Of Contents
Summarize with
ChatGPT Claude Gemini Perplexity Grok

Businesses in California use advertising to tell consumers about their goods, and buyers rely on those statements when purchasing the item. False or misleading advertising is illegal because it is important to protect consumers, and ensure that they can rely on the information given to them in advertisements.

Under state and federal laws, advertising must be truthful and where appropriate, backed by scientific evidence. Truth-in-advertising laws are applicable regardless of where the advertisement appears. The Federal Trade Commission looks extra closely at items that would affect consumer’s health or finances. Therefore, claims about food, dietary supplements, tobacco and alcohol are monitored closely.

It is also possible to bring a claim against someone for consumer fraud. To do this, the plaintiff must prove that the person made misleading or false statements about their own products or someone else’s, that there was actual deception, or there was a tendency to deceive a significant portion of the intended audience, purchasing is dependent on the deception, interstate lines will be crossed with the advertised goods and the person filing the suit is likely to suffer an injury, but not actual injury.

There are strict laws in place to ensure consumers are protected against fraudulent practices, and to discourage businesses from engaging in deceitful practices. California residents who have fallen prey to misleading advertisements may want to discuss their legal options with an experienced attorney. Consumers may be able to recover the money they spent on bad products or services, and in some cases, collect other damages as well.

Quick Navigation

Free Consultation

Undisclosed
Settlement

TCPA class action against the Los Angeles Times. Final approval granted 2014.

More Details
$750,000
Settlement

Common fund class-wide TCPA settlement against home healthcare provider. Final approval granted.

More Details
$27.6M
Settlement

TCPA class action certified on behalf of approximately 2,000,000 class members under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3). Subsequently settled on a Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) basis. Final approval granted.

More Details
$5.2M
Settlement

/

Unruh Act class action on behalf of approximately 240,000 consumers challenging Tinder’s age-based differential pricing for its subscription service. Final approval granted; subsequently went up on appeal.

More Details
$390,000
Settlement

TCPA class action alleging HD Supply sent unauthorized marketing text messages to consumers’ mobile phones without consent between October 21, 2011 and July 26, 2017. Presided over by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. Case terminated January 29, 2018.

More Details
$1,500,000
Settlement

/

TCPA class action against a Kansas-based payday lender alleged to have contacted consumers via prerecorded calls on their cell phones to collect alleged debts without consent. California federal judge granted final approval.

More Details
$6,500,000
Settlement

/

Cal. Penal Code § 632.7 class action certified by contested motion under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) on behalf of over 40,000 class members whose calls were recorded without their knowledge or consent. Final approval granted.

More Details
$13,000,000
Settlement

/

$13 Million Class action alleging HSBC recorded consumer telephone calls without knowledge or consent in violation of California’s Privacy Statute (Penal Code § 632.7). California Federal Judge granted final approval.

More Details
$34,000,000
Settlement

/

One of the largest TCPA class action settlements in U.S. history at time of approval. Alleged Chase used an automatic telephone dialing system to contact consumers on their cell phones without prior express consent from July 2008 through December 2013. Settlement class included over 32 million members. Final approval granted March 2016.

More Details
$150,000,000
Settlement

/

Class action on behalf of over 100,000 owners of GM vehicles equipped with allegedly defective LG-manufactured batteries posing fire and safety risks. Litigation commenced December 2020. U.S. District Judge Terrence G. Berg indicated preliminary approval of the $150 million settlement.

More Details
$100,000,000
Settlement

/ /

Landmark gig-economy class action. DoorDash drivers in California and Massachusetts alleged they were wrongly classified as independent contractors rather than employees. Firm served as class counsel. Final approval granted January 13, 2022 — the largest gig-economy worker class settlement in U.S. history at the time.

More Details

Office Locations

Copyright 2025 Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C. All Rights Reserved.