CronoDAS comments on Mandating Information Disclosure vs. Banning Deceptive Contract Terms - Less Wrong

21 Post author: David_J_Balan 20 December 2009 08:55PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (74)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: pjeby 20 December 2009 11:17:34PM *  1 point [-]

If you mandated disclosure and then saw those contracts continuing to exist, the conclusion you should draw was that the disclosure was ineffective, not that the terms were efficient.

Interestingly, this seems to be the logic of the FTC of late; its new guidelines for the use of testimonials take the position that if somebody is convinced by an atypical testimonial that they will get the same results, it doesn't matter that the advertiser never claimed they would or even explicitly said the results were atypical.

(I have mixed feelings about this, since on the one hand I think deception is bad. On the other hand, they seem to be making advertisers responsible for how illogical or self-deluding their customers might be.)

Comment author: CronoDAS 21 December 2009 12:20:47AM 2 points [-]

"Results not typical" really doesn't give enough information. I think that a "results not typical" disclaimer really ought to be required to include what the typical results actually were.