Well the Doc opened up the old mailbag today and here’s what poured out.

Dear Dr. Ads,

There I was, minding my own business and starting to read the Wall Street Journal, when I came across Erin Mulvaney’s Page One piece about the barrage of ad campaigns seeking plaintiffs for megabucks product-liability and personal-injury cases.

Nearly 800,000 television advertisements for mass litigation ran in 2023 at a cost of more than $160 million, according to X Ante, a firm that specializes in research on mass tort advertising. Ad spending has been at historic highs in recent years, showing surges when particular cases gain steam. When lawsuits targeting Monsanto’s Roundup weedkiller were gaining momentum in the courts in 2019, for example, overall industry ad spending reached nearly $300 million on television spots.

It’s even crazier than that, as you can see in this Journal chart of the top five tort targets for the past ten years.

(Glyphosate = Roundup weedkiller, for those of you keeping score at home.)

Hey, Doc – any litigation consternation about the prolific advice you dish to the ad-lorn?

– Sweet Sue

Dear SS,

For starters, please see the federally mandated warning in the banner atop this post.

Dr. Ads Is Not a Licensed Physician

So it’s not the Doc who needs malpractice insurance; it’s all the consumer brands out there scamming the fine folks across this great land of ours.

Like who? Like the fruit-faking, truth- and union-busting executives at Starbucks, whose grift NPR’s Joe Hernandez has detailed.

Mango Dragonfruit Starbucks Refreshers are missing mango, Strawberry Açaí Starbucks Refreshers lack açaí and Pineapple Passionfruit Starbucks Refreshers have no passion fruit.

That’s what two consumers who have sued Starbucks for consumer protection law violations say about the coffee giant’s fruit-based drinks. [In September] a federal judge in Manhattan ruled their case could move forward.

Then you’ve got the Great Reese’s Halloween Face-Plant, as USA Today’s Sarah Al-Arshani reported.

A Florida woman upset that Reese’s holiday-themed chocolates did not feature the same cute designs she claims was shown on its packaging is suing manufacturer Hershey’s for false advertisement.

In a lawsuit filed on Dec. 28 in Florida’s Middle District Court, Cynthia Kelly sued Hershey’s for $5 million, alleging that the company misled buyers with “false and deceptive advertising” on their packaging.”This is a class action against Hershey for falsely representing several Reese’s Peanut Butter products as containing explicitly carved-out artistic designs when there are no such carvings in the actual products,” the lawsuit said.

Not so sweet, eh Sue? The same law firm is suing Burger King for misrepresenting food items as larger than they actually are.

According to this Forbes piece by Dr. Marcus Collins, the issue goes beyond any technical definition of false advertising.

This story is about shared understanding and its impact on expectations and trust. If Reese’s understood that some people would see the packaging and expect the product to look exactly as it does on the wrapper then the company would have likely engraved the smile on the candy or put a disclaimer on the packaging. But it didn’t. Reese’s didn’t have that understanding, which led to unmet expectations and broken trust due to consumer disappointment.

Of course, no one in their right mind has any expectations or illusions about what the Doc might say. So no broken trust, right?

Case closed.