Is it illegal to make a truthful statement about a fictitious ingredient?
<p>Let's say that a company is selling a moisturizing cream with the "stuffase-free" marketing argument on its face label.</p>

<p>The cream indeed doesn't contains stuffase, but the label is implicitly implying that:</p>

<ul>
<li>other creams may contain stuffase (which is false in most cases)</li>
<li>stuffase is bad for your health (which is either false or true but irrelevant since it is not found anywhere)</li>
</ul>

<p>This question applies for following variations: </p>

<ul>
<li>stuffase doesn't even exist, </li>
<li>stuffase exists but its effect on health is currently unknown,</li>
<li>stuffase exists but is thought to be safe for most humans' health </li>
</ul>

<p>Since nothing is explicitely false in this speech, I'm wondering, is it illegal somewhere (World/Europe/France/US)?</p>

<p>In the Netherlands, this qualifies as a <em>deceptive trade practice</em> (misleidende handelspraktijk) and is therefore directly illegal.</p>

<p>It's likely also an <em>unfair trade practice</em>, (oneerlijke handelspraktijk) as the claim appears intended for end consumers. This means that the seller cannot count on the consumer knowing anythong about stuffase.</p>

<p>It is a dutch implementation of EU directive 2005/29/EG, so similar laws apply in other EU countries. But the illegal <em>per se</em> part might vary.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Is it illegal to make a truthful statement about a fictitious ingredient?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>No. The label "<em>stuffase-free</em>" nowhere implies or insinuates that other creams contain stuffase. For it to be deceptive or misleading, the label would have to be more unequivocal. For instance, "<em>The <strong>only</strong> cream that is stuffase-free</em>" would be misleading if other creams are stuffase-free as well.</p>

<p>The link given in <a href="https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/38330/is-it-illegal-to-make-a-real-statement-for-a-false-health-benefit#comment69571_38330">this comment</a> purports that the ad could prejudice competitors' products:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The ad can imply that competitors' products do not do this because
  they fail to measure up to the same standards. After all, if this
  brand of dry cereal proclaims so loudly that it is 100% fat free while
  the rest are silent, that means other brands are just dripping with
  lard, right?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>However, that opinion fails to distinguish that some speculations which <em>might</em> occur in the customer's mind are not sufficiently premised on the label or slogan with which the product is marketed. Thus, the ad would not be actionable as <em>deceptive</em> or <em>unfairly prejudicial</em>.</p>

<p>Legislations typically require a disclaimer only where the product contains harmful components or if it lacks necessary ingredients. The marketing scenario you describe fits neither of these two conditions.</p>

fraud