The Legal Implications Of Advertising A Car

Advertising is protected by the First Amendment of the United States constitution. Conversely, advertising requires less control from the First Amendment, but requires the majority of control from the government and most importantly, the Federal Trade Commission. The Federal Trade Commission controls the content and images that are being advertised to consumers that seem to be exaggerated or just plain over the top. With that being said, false advertising is one of the biggest rising issues amongst many companies, celebrities, business, and much more. False advertising is when an individual(s) attempt to betray consumers into believing they are purchasing an absolutely amazing product, when in reality, they are

The United States require every driver to have car insurance in order to drive legally in the United States. The problem, however, is choosing the right one. Two of the major companies today are Allstate and State Farm. In the Allstate commercial, a man portrays “Mayhem” to show drivers the risks they experience while driving on the road. The man says he is modeling a blind spot, explaining that drivers may not see what hides in them, resulting in an accident. In the State Farm commercial, two situations are on display, one of which a teenage girl getting her first car, and the other a grown man getting his car broken into, demonstrating that State Farm is there for everyone. To endorse their product effectively, both of these brands apply pathos, ethos, and logos to their commercials.

A dealer sold a new car to Raymond Smith. The sales contract contained language expressly disclaiming liability for personal injuries caused as a result of defects in the car and limiting the remedy for breach of warranty to repair or replacement of the defective part. One month after purchasing the auto, Smith was seriously injured when the car veered off the road and into a ditch as a result of a defect in the steering mechanism of the car.

In this essay, I will argue that Ford Motor Company’s business behavior was unethical as demonstrated in the Ford Pinto Case. Ford did not reveal all the facts to consumers about a harmful gas tank design in the Ford Pinto. They tried to justify their decision to sell an unsafe car by using a Cost-Benefit Analysis which determined it was cheaper to sell the cars without changing to a safer gas tank. The price of not fixing the gas tanks is human injuries and fatalities. By choosing not to make the Pinto a safer vehicle Ford placed a price on the head of every consumer. Ford’s primary concern was to maximize profits. Ford had a duty and ethical responsibility to customers to

White says that “to produce a new vehicle it takes three to five years” (332), but he neglects to prove this information with ethos. The author later defends the automakers by stating “that doesn’t mean auto makers and their technology suppliers aren’t serious about rethinking the status quo” (333), therefore, he could confuse the reader with mixed opinions (332-333).

The National Hot Rod Association (NHRA) has many rules regarding safety and well being of the cars and drivers, but they still have crashes!!! All of the crashes seem like they could have been prevented had more thorough inspections been done. There have been well over 520* deadly crashes in drag racing history and many on “safe” tracks. With this many crashes you would think that safety is a low priority but that is not entirely true.

Hamilton (the Company) was a subsidiary of Motor Company (MC). In 1999 the Company spun off from MC and incorporated. After the separation MC informed the Company that they owed $350-$800 million in warranty claims related to sales that occurred prior to the separation in 1999. Hamilton’s management believed that any warranty claims related to sales prior to the separation should be limited to the reserve amount that was agreed upon separation. MC wanted the full payment for what they owed relating to warranty claims. MC remained Hamilton’s largest client and because of that, Hamilton’s management was motivated to find a solution that would appease MC. Management realized that in paying anything over $100 million to MC would cause a significant reduction in operating income. For this reason, management had significant incentives to mask the true level of warranty expense in order to meet analysts’ forecasts. Management made the decision to report favorable results, no matter what.

In the early 60’s America’s demand for large cars began to diminish, resulting in many car manufactures production of smaller cars. One car that was released was the Chevy Corvair, a small, compact, rear engine, six seater car, that was an ambitious goal for a company who didn’t want to spend the appropriate resources. Chevy aimed to create huge turnover from this compact car by cutting as many corners as possible. This resulted in a car deemed to be unsafe at any speed. Whether it be the bad handling, poorly designed engine, or poor design flaws, Chevy released a car that they knew was dangerous and did not say anything about it in hopes for a large profit, making them unethical in multiple ways (Unsafe at any speed,1).

Each day we are bombarded with advertisements from a plethora of corporations in every waking moment of our lives. Advertising agencies have become so advanced at what they do, that often times we may not even realize we are being advertised a product. This raises an interesting ethical dilemma over a certain type of advertising: persuasive advertising. Philosophers, economists, and business professionals have debated over whether or not persuasive advertising is an immoral violation of the autonomy of consumers. While not all forms of advertising are in and of themselves certainly immoral, persuasive advertising is particularly reprehensible due to the fact that not only does it manipulate our unconscious desires of which we are completely unaware in order to sell a product, but it also routinely leads us to act against our own best interest, thus overriding our autonomy.

One of the many problems during the hearing is the emergence GM not only knowing about the defective ignition switch, but they also switched the defective product for a working one, yet still kept the same product number. In addition, during Senator Boxer’s questioning, she revealed that GM made a decision not to fix the defective product due to GM claiming that it “was not an effective business decision” due to the high cost of fixing the problem and the length of time it would take. Senator Nelson also brought up the issue of how people would be able to drive cars that are known to have the defects, citing that customers deserve compensation in a quick and effective process and are not satisfied with GM’s solution of driving “with only the car key in the ignition”.

In order to prevail on a claim, Lindenwood Auto Parts must show Callahan’s acts had a significant anticompetitive effect that was not offset by the positive impact on competition, thus, it can be judged under rule of reason analysis. Although manufacturers can lawfully and unilaterally assign specialized dealerships or limit the number of dealerships, the court may consider their acts as illegal. The main reason is if they require distributors to agree to refrain from selling to stores outside their assigned retailers by using their monopolistic power. Furthermore, there might be joint actions of Callahan and its specialized retailers, and Lindenwood also has to prove that there is an ultimate effect on competition.

“a consumer buying a car may not be informed fully about the safety features of various models or may not have adequate information to evaluate the importance or usefulness of various options (e.g., antilock brakes, four-wheel drive, side cross beams to reduce the damage from a side collision). The information asymmetry about those models or features is common and may allow an "aggressive" sales person to exploit the buyer's ignorance” (Englander & Moy, 2003).

So for years now, the car industry has been evolving. While it is getting bigger and bigger, it is also branching off to many other sub-industries. Among those industries, one of the most popular is the racing one. It has been evolving since it has started. And to say that it is very popular in this generation would be a huge understatement. Even while it is an industry of its own (Racing industry), it still has many different branches. For instance, when we talk about racing, we can have an endless discussion about how many different kinds there are. On the legal side of racing, we have organized activities such as NASCAR racing events, but if we want to talk about illegal racing ways, we can talk about street racing or drag racing on local streets. This however, will be discussed in the main part of this paper. So before getting into the meat of this paper – which is the driving question (“Why is racing important in the car industry?”) – We need to answer why talking about his is important to know about. So, why is this topic crucial to know about? Well for starters, racing has become one of the most popular activates that most teenage boys and professionals partake in. other than that, racing brings one of the biggest revenues economically to the table. Now this means better improvements in the car industry as a whole. While we are talking about improvements to the car industry, we can certainly talk about how sport and

Now the wind of technological advancement is blowing all around the glob. Our life become so much easy and comfortable. For the sake of explosion of new technology, media, and new opportunities is transforming the marketing and advertising landscape and revolutionizing the way the industry conducts business. The only fact is the transparency that is needed. For the sake of motivating advertising, public relations, and marketing communications professionals to practice the highest personal ethics in the creation and distribution of commercial information to consumers the institute for advertising (IAE) was created.

Marketing practices in the contemporary western society have been a hotbed of ethical debate for a long time. The ethical analysis required for this case revolves around the issue of marketing, and more specifically relates to advertising. The overall ethical dilemma is whether or not I should, in the role of a senior marketing manager of a soft drink company, approve a sexually suggestive advertising campaign for non-alcoholic beer targeted to a teenage consumer market. As with other ethical dilemmas, there is no obvious correct solution to this predicament. However, in my opinion, I would