Your examples are matters of opinion, the Exxon case is a matter of hiding facts known to the company which are not vague as an opinion of quality.

Some of the allegations are exactly that vague. One of the major alleged misrepresentations is that Exxon claimed to be environmentally conscious:

> 687. ExxonMobil's greenwashing misleads consumers by saturating its brand with deceptive "green" images that portray ExxonMobil as a good environmental steward when, in fact, these images are contradicted by the actual environmental and public health impact of ExxonMobil's business. These images direct attention away from the massive and dangerous climate and public health harms caused by the routine production and use of ExxonMobil fossel fuel products and focus consumer attention instead on ExxonMobil's purported environmental responsibility and leadership.

That part of the complaint is referring to ExxonMobil's greenwashing efforts in Massachusetts. The fairly vague wording of 687 follows dozens of pages including full color reproduction of the ads which make the case that Exxon sought to convince customers that using their whiz-bang petroleum product (motor oil) can meaningfully "clean" engines and will result in decreased environmental impact from fossil fuels.

>645. ExxonMobil’s misleading statements and omissions are deceptive because, even if it is technically true that Synergy™ and Mobil 1™ improve internal combustion engine performance and/or efficiency relative to prior or other products, ExxonMobil’s claims that these products help reduce greenhouse gas emissions convey a false impression that using the products results in environmental benefits. To the contrary, the development, production, refining, and consumer use of ExxonMobil fossil fuel products (even products that may yield relatively more efficient engine performance) increase greenhouse gas emissions.

Isn't that part even more concerning? Exxon said some true things about its efforts to help the environment, and Massachusetts agrees they were "technically true". But saying these true things was still deceptive according to the state, because saying Exxon is good is like saying that fossil fuels are good and the state thinks they're actually bad.

No, what the state thinks is bad is that ExxonMobil is marketing the global petroleum conglomerate's version of a Safer Cigarette. Tobacco causes cancer; There is no safe cigarette.

The non-lying versions of the ad would be more like: "Combusting hydrocarbons produces, directly and indirectly, large portions of the total global CO2 released every year. The only way to reduce tailpipe CO2 emissions is to consume less combustion products. If you use ExxonMobil Synergy™ and Special Green Mobil 1™ then you could burn 0.65% fewer hydrocarbon molecules in your first 3 months!"

I do however agree with your main point, it probably wouldn't A/B as well.

I agree with the comparison. A lot of the tobacco lawsuits were also driven by moral panic more than any general principle. McDonalds is allowed to say they're working on healthier options even though all their food is unhealthy; Amazon is allowed to say they're working on reducing packaging waste even though they use a ton of packaging.

Yes, the tobacco industry also created ad campaigns from lies. My opinion is that misleading consumers about product harm is also tort. Of course, I am not a lawyer.

You may be unfamiliar with how legal documents are structured. As is typical, every paragraph of the complaint is numbered for easy referencing; the fact that this was 687 doesn't indicate that the other 686 things were more important, just that they were written earlier in the document. The paragraph I quoted was the beginning of a major section about "greenwashing".

Perhaps a better example - is it illegal to not disclose that your supply chain includes companies with inhumane/unethical work practices? I don't see most companies talking about how their factories are potentially mistreating folks, even though it's quite likely that they know about it.

I'm not sure how I feel about it myself, but I'm not sure how I want this to be handled as a legal matter.

See, that sort of thing strikes me as hairy.

Apologies for the quick tangent but... It's interesting.

As far as I'm aware, there is a lot you can get away with not saying, as the courts are specifically not huge fans of compelled speech.

Each form of compelled speech that I'm aware of tends to arise from the authority of an administrative regulator. I.e. FDA compelling ingredient labels, side-effects, Office of the Surgeon General for alcohol and tobacco/nicotine warnings, FTC/CFPB for product/financial product marketing/disclaimers, Bureau of Labor postings in the workplace etc.

With regards to specific things like child labor/conflict minerals, etc..., the issue shouldn't have to come up in theory, because you shouldn't be doing it period, and any evidence that you are is prosecutable without having to indirectly assert it was a case of securities fraud.

It's also not illegal to be daft or misleading until it crosses the line into fraud, where a material reliance on the veracity or falsehood of the information can be demonstrated.

That doesn't mean that there aren't grey area cases, or that everyone does their due diligence, but in general, this is the way things have always worked for as long as I've been around.

My 2 cents.

I think the case here is that, say, the companies that were contracting with Foxconn or the like weren't doing anything explicitly illegal, but a large portion of people would see it as immoral/unethical. I'm certainly not saying that the government couldn't compel companies to label/disclose that sort of link, but assuming that's not the law, should Apple be sued for fraud if it turns out they were contracting with firms using unethical labor?

Obviously Exxon and others went further and attempted to discredit the evidence that what they were doing could be wrong, but if they'd just done the research into the climate impacts, and just never published it, would that have been fraudulent? To just pretend they didn't know what they were doing was immoral/unethical? That seems like the sort of things plenty of companies do all the time, to varying degrees of moral and ethical fault.

To extend the metaphor- is it implicit guilt and/or misleading for Apple to generate PR about the ~300 jobs in Texas it created in making new pro laptops / desktops (a relatively small market), when they're responsible for mistreating 3000-30000 laborers making iPhones in China? (numbers made up)

There are explicit legal provisions for "puffery" to cover the Samsung case as being just marketing fluff and not a claim of objective truth. But if you won a contract based on tricking your customer i to thinking your software was easier to use than the competition when it wasn't, yes, I personally would worry about the FTC.

More generally, preventing deceptive trade practices without preventing ordinary marketing is a well-established and well-explored field, it's not like Massachusetts invented it for this case. (And if anything threatens the rule of law, it's saying, "I don't know what the relevant statutes and regulations and caselaw is in this field so I think we shouldn't enforce laws in this field at all.")