What defines the extent to which a business can voluntarily lie to its customers? Businesses' communication is a constant stream of lies: on the phone: our menu options have changed we're experiencing a higher than normal call volume your call is important to us when advertising: the best pizza in town scientifically proven lose x pounds in y hours all natural when talking to you: I'll get on it right away we'll call you right back we charged you this fee for your convenience we take x very seriously on the internet it's also endless... My question is not about the dangerous lies that can have consequences (eat a lemon and you won't get covid), but rather the continuous stream of lies that have been accepted as business as usual. I can see them used to either: steer a customer in a direction and / or state of mind. For example buy this, be patient with us, etc or to make interactions smoother and avoid confrontation by pretending to care for example. So what would be the threshold for a lie to be actionable where you could claim a damage? Does it always have to be material damage? or would a waste of time also be valid for example?
what would be the threshold for a lie to be actionable where you could claim a damage? There is no award for &quot;lies&quot; which clearly are inconsequential. A customer will never make decisions based on whether &quot;menu options have changed&quot; or whether the business is honest on the statement &quot;your call is important to us&quot;. The impact that the duration of these statements have on the customer is negligible at best, since omitting these statements does not improve the company's response time anyway. The statement &quot;your call is important to us&quot; might not even be a lie. Many companies know that it is in their best interest to gather information from their customers on what to improve, lest customers switch to a competitor or file suit. The lack of objective standards renders statements such as &quot;best pizza in town&quot; unascertainable. Accordingly, it would be unreasonable for a customer to rely on criteria that are subjective, undefined, unclear, and/or palpably fictitious. Only statements like &quot;scientifically proven&quot; and &quot;lose x pounds in y hours&quot; might be within scope of consumer protection laws (see also unfair and misleading practices). The assessment of those scenarios requires more detail, including disclaimers and other &quot;small letters&quot; that are --or ought to be-- disclosed no later than the formation of the contract.
Because there is no duty to be honest Generally, there is no duty of honesty except in specific circumstances. These include: when under penalty of perjury when negotiating a contract when immediate and direct harm would result from dishonesty (e.g. telling someone it was safe to cross the road when it wasn’t) under most consumer protection laws, when engaged in trade or commerce (which politics isn’t) Definitions differ but fraud requires both dishonesty and deception to acquire property or money or to cause loss. A vote is not property or money. While donations involve money, they are gifts and are given without expectation of reciprocity.
In Australia, the overall representations of the website must not be misleading or deceptive when it comes to the provision of goods or services, in order to comply with Australian Consumer Law. The length of the terms matters. In a very recent case against a homeopathy website, it was noted that (at [47]): The terms and conditions were exceedingly lengthy and it was highly unlikely that any visitor would trawl through them merely to access another part of the Website for free. In this case the significance of the length was not specifically tested. The position of the terms also matters. In another case against a major retailer, it was noted (at [37]) that the conditions visible: a user accessed a link at the bottom of each page of the HN Website titled “Website Terms and Conditions”, such that it was unlikely either condition would be found by a normal reader reading the HN Catalogue or viewing the HN Website This specific matter related to a very specific claim made by the retailer, and so I can't say whether it applies in general to website terms and conditions. Apart from the above cases, I can't find any good examples where the exact form of a website's terms have been considered in determining a case. There are some United States cases referred to in the Wikipedia article for browse wrap. These seem to have been judged in favour of the website operator only when the terms are conspicuous, and/or when the user has had repeated exposure to them (or a link to them), for example over a number of pages. Even where the terms are linked at the bottom of the website, and a user is not required to scroll to the bottom to use the site, terms have been found unenforceable. As far as I know, there's no statutory requirements - in Australia, at least, and quite likely anywhere else - that specify the manner and form that disclaimers may take.
No, it’s not bad In fact it can do a great deal of good. It’s entirely possible that you will negotiate a settlement that is better for both of you than court. Negotiations undertaken in such circumstances are inadmissible in court - the legal term is without prejudice. The reasoning is that is good public policy for parties to be able to resolve disputes without needing a court and that they should be free to make admissions, concessions and offers without the threat that these will be used against them if they do need to go to court. Be careful about accusing people of things like ‘dishonesty’ First, interpretation of other people’s behaviour depends a lot on where you stand. If you are in dispute with someone you are likely to attribute motives to them that may not be there or may not be apparent to a more detached observer. For example, offers can be withdrawn at any time prior to their acceptance - doing so is not “dishonest”. Second, (dis)honesty is a question of fact, not opinion, and it involves more than whether someone is always truthful - people can tell falsehoods and still be honest. Stating that someone is dishonest when you can’t prove that they are, in fact, dishonest is defamation.
There are two common defenses to defamation (there are others): That what you said is true. That what you said cannot be reasonably interpreted as a factual claim. If after examining the totality of the circumstances, a fact-finder (judge or jury) sees your statement to be an expression of opinion rather than a factual claim about the subject, you would not be found to have defamed the subject. The opinion defence doesn't have a bright line rule. In your example, I think it is clearly on the side of opinion. However, if you were to say something like "Douglas Dunce, Apple's Chief Engineer, has an IQ of 76", that would be almost certainly be deemed a factual claim. The leading case here is Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co. The court held that "statements that cannot reasonably be interpreted as stating actual facts about an individual are protected". Other summaries of this defence: http://www.defamationlawblog.com/2009/01/fact-vs-opinion-setting-the-record-straight/ http://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-law-resources/news-media-law/news-media-and-law-summer-2011/opinion-defense-remains-str
It may not be libel, but it may violate other statutes and may support a judgement against the person publishing this information as long as there is an injury-in-fact ("an invasion of a legally protected interest that is concrete and particularized and actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical"). A recent case, Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins 578 U.S. ___ (2016) considered the case where a company created a profile for a person. That profile stated "that he is married, has children, is in his 50’s, has a job, is relatively affluent, and holds a graduate degree". The plaintiff asserted that all of this was incorrect. The plaintiff made a claim under the Fair Credit Reporting Act because the information was false. However, mere violation of statute is not sufficient to meet the "injury-in-fact" requirement for standing. Congress can't create standing via statute. Injury-in-fact still requires a "concrete" injury. This does not need to be a physical, tangible injury. But, it does need to be concrete. On its own, publication of false information, even when statute prohibits it, does not create standing. There must be an injury-in-fact.
Ethics and morality aside, does the situation cross over into a general legal understanding of extortion? No. Extortion necessarily includes coercion. An offer to tell what is wrong (and from the point of view of the target — only allegedly wrong) is neither threat nor force, therefore no coercion. It would have been coercion (and therefore extortion) if the guy said along the lines "If you don't pay I will exploit the vulnerability, and/or tell a bunch of bad guys about it — they will be sooo thankful to me". Provided that the guy does not say/imply he will do something if not paid, there are no legal issues here.
As long as a person applying for life insurance accurately discloses his or her occupation (and other relevant personal characteristics, such as age and health) in accordance with local law and the company's application form, there is no fraud. The company may or may not charge a higher rate for people with high-risk jobs. That is a business decision for the insurance company, although it may be limited by law or regulation in a particular jurisdiction.