When consumers look for the best deal, they frequently compare the prices of different brands or models. If a retailer claims their store-brand television is hundreds of dollars cheaper than a competitor’s name-brand television, the consumer assumes the two products are of similar quality and capability. However, comparing a basic, entry-level item to a premium, professional-grade item without disclosing the difference is misleading. The Utah Truth in Advertising Act protects consumers from these “apples to oranges” comparisons.
What is the Utah Truth in Advertising Act?
The Utah Truth in Advertising Act, found in Utah Code Title 13, Chapter 11a, is designed to prevent deceptive, misleading, and false advertising practices within the state. Its primary goal is to ensure that businesses compete fairly and that consumers receive accurate information about the goods and services they purchase.
Under this law, a practice is considered deceptive if a business passes off goods as something they are not, creates confusion about a product’s source, or selectively manipulates pricing data to make their own offers appear artificially superior.
The Rule on “Apples to Oranges” Comparisons
Specifically, Utah Code § 13-11a-3(1)(s) addresses how businesses handle comparisons between items that are not exactly the same. The law states that a deceptive trade practice occurs when a person or business:
“makes a comparison between similar but nonidentical goods or services unless the nonidentical goods or services are of essentially similar quality to the advertised goods or services or the dissimilar aspects are clearly and conspicuously disclosed in the advertisements…”
In simple terms, a business cannot legally compare the price of their own product to a competitor’s product if the items are of vastly different quality, materials, or capability—unless they make it completely clear to the consumer exactly how the items differ. You cannot compare a cheap “apple” to a premium “orange” to show a price difference without explicitly admitting that you are selling the apple.
Why Fair Comparisons Matter
Truthful and equivalent selections in price comparisons are the foundation of a fair and transparent market. When a business uses “apples to oranges” comparisons, it harms the consumer and disrupts fair competition.
- Accurate Market Valuation: Consumers use comparison pricing to understand the going rate for a specific level of quality. Comparing unequal goods tricks a buyer into thinking a store is offering a massive discount, when in reality, they are just selling an inferior product.
- Trust in Advertising: Shoppers assume that when two items are directly compared on price in an advertisement, they are essentially the same thing. Secretly comparing a low-tier item to a competitor’s premium item manipulates this trust.
- Fair Competition: When a company falsely presents its cheap product as the direct equivalent of a competitor’s high-end product just to boast a lower price tag, it steals business from honest competitors who accurately represent the quality of their inventory.
Examples of Deceptive “Apples to Oranges” Comparisons
A violation of these rules regarding unequal product comparisons can take several forms:
- The “Stripped Down” Model Comparison: A car dealership compares the price of its base model truck—which lacks four-wheel drive, a towing package, and power windows—to a rival dealership’s fully loaded premium truck. If the dealership does not conspicuously disclose the massive difference in features, the comparison is deceptive.
- Differing Materials and Durability: A hardware store compares the price of its plastic patio furniture set to a competitor’s identical-looking teak wood furniture set. Because the materials are completely different in durability and value, claiming a “lower price on patio sets” without disclosing the material difference violates the act.
Enforcement and Consequences
The Utah Truth in Advertising Act provides mechanisms to address violations. If a court finds that a person or business is violating any provisions of this Chapter, the consequences can include:
- Injunctions: A court can order the business to stop the deceptive advertising practice immediately.
- Financial Damages: The court may award actual damages sustained from the deception or $2,000, whichever is greater.
The focus of the law is on transparency and fairness. If a business wants to boast that their product is cheaper than a rival’s, the items compared must be truly equivalent, or the differences must be clearly announced.
Need Legal Assistance in Utah?
If you have questions about consumer protection laws or believe you have been affected by deceptive trade practices, Head Law can help. Managing attorney David S. Head and his team assist clients in protecting their rights under Utah consumer laws. Contact Head Law at (801) 691-7511 to schedule a consultation.