16 C.F.R. § 238.0
Bait advertising defined. 1
Bait advertising is an alluring but insincere offer to sell a product or service which the advertiser in truth does not intend or want to sell. Its purpose is to switch consumers from buying the advertised merchandise, in order to sell something else, usually at a higher price or on a basis more advantageous to the advertiser. The primary aim of a bait advertisement is to obtain leads as to persons interested in buying merchandise of the type so advertised.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases, 1985–2019 · leading case: Gonzales v. Assocs. Fin. Serv. Co. of Kansas, Inc., 967 P.2d 312 (Kan. 1998).
Gonzales v. Assocs. Fin. Serv. Co. of Kansas, Inc., 967 P.2d 312 (Kan. 1998). “Wichita Business College challenged a jury verdict against it for violation of the TILA and the KCPA. The Manley court noted that Wichita Business College's acts in steering Manley towards the more expensive course violated the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) regulation against…”
Jacqueline Goldberg v. 401 N. Wabash Venture, L.L.C., 755 F.3d 456 (7th Cir. 2014). “2d 52, 54 (1978), quoting 16 C.F.R. § 238.0 and quoted in Chandler v.”
Bavaro Palace, S.A. v. Vacation Tours, Inc., 203 F. App'x 252 (11th Cir. 2006). “16 C.F.R. § 238.0 (2006). Additionally, the Florida legislature’s purpose in drafting FDUTPA may guide the district court’s decision about this claim.”
Florez v. Ginsberg, 449 P.3d 770 (Kan. Ct. App. 2019). “at 436 (quoting 16 C.F.R. § 238.0 [1985]). The facts alleged by Florez do not reflect a bait-and-switch operation.”
Manley v. Wichita Bus. Coll., 701 P.2d 893 (Kan. 1985). “” 16 C.F.R. § 238.0 (1985). One element indicative of a bait and switch operation has been set out by the FTC as: “Use of a sales plan or method of compensation for salesmen or penalizing *437 salesmen, designed to prevent or discourage them from selling the advertised product.”
Bristol Tech., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 114 F. Supp. 2d 59 (D. Conn. 2000). “See generally 16 C.F.R. § 238.0 et seq. Microsoft encouraged UNIX developers, as well as ISVs and MIS managers, to switch to Windows because of the ease of portability of Windows applications that the WISE Program afforded.”
Allergy Asthma Tech., Ltd. v. I Can Breathe, Inc., 195 F. Supp. 2d 1059 (N.D. Ill. 2002). “Its purpose is to switch consumers from buying the advertised merchandise, in order to sell something else, usually at a higher price or on a basis more advantageous to the advertiser.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.