When consumers look for the best deal, they often rely on broad comparisons. If a grocery store claims that its “produce is consistently cheaper” than a rival’s, or a retailer advertises a basket of goods to prove they offer the lowest prices in town, shoppers use that information to decide where to spend their entire paycheck. However, these claims can easily be manipulated if a business only highlights the specific items that make them look good. The Utah Truth in Advertising Act protects consumers from being misled by skewed data.
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 overall offers appear artificially superior.
The Rule on Cherry-Picked Comparisons
Specifically, Utah Code § 13-11a-3(1)(r) and (s) address how businesses select items when comparing entire categories of products against a competitor. The law states that a deceptive trade practice occurs when a person or business:
(r) makes a price comparison between a category of the supplier’s goods and the same category of the goods of another, without randomly selecting the individual goods or services upon whose prices the comparison is based;
(s) 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 claim an entire category of their products (like “groceries,” “electronics,” or “lumber”) is cheaper by deliberately hand-picking only the specific items where their prices are lower, while ignoring the items where they are more expensive. If they are making a category-wide comparison, the items tested must be randomly selected. Furthermore, a business cannot compare their own generic or low-tier item to a competitor’s premium item to show a price difference without making it clear that the products are of different qualities.
Why Fair Selections Matter
Truthful and random selections in price comparisons are the foundation of a fair and transparent market. When a business uses cherry-picked comparisons, it harms the consumer and disrupts fair competition.
- Accurate Market Valuation: Consumers use category comparisons to figure out where to do their primary shopping. A skewed comparison tricks a buyer into thinking a store is generally cheaper, causing them to overpay on the majority of their purchases.
- Apples-to-Apples Trust: Shoppers assume that when two items are compared on price, they are of the same quality and grade. Secretly comparing a cheap store brand to a competitor’s name brand manipulates this trust.
- Fair Competition: When a company falsely presents a heavily curated list of products as proof of their “everyday low prices,” it steals business from honest competitors who may actually have a lower average price across a truly random selection of goods.
Examples of Deceptive Cherry-Picked Comparisons
A violation of these rules regarding selective or cherry-picked price comparisons can take several forms:
- The Hand-Picked Grocery Basket: A supermarket runs a television ad showing a “shopping cart price comparison” between them and a rival, claiming their cart was $30 cheaper. However, they intentionally only filled the cart with items they had on clearance that week, carefully avoiding any staple items where the rival store was cheaper.
- Comparing Apples to Oranges: A hardware store compares the price of its house-brand basic power drill to a competitor’s heavy-duty, professional-grade drill of the same voltage, without conspicuously disclosing the massive difference in brand and quality in the advertisement.
- The Skewed Category Claim: A pet supply store advertises, “Our dog food prices beat the big box stores!” To make this claim, their marketing team only checked the prices of three obscure brands they sell at a loss, entirely ignoring the top ten most popular brands where the big box store is actually cheaper.
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 category of goods is cheaper, the test must be random and the items compared must be truly equivalent.
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.