Hawaii Revised Statutes

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 708-871 (2026)

False advertising

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section HI-LEGcapitol.hawaii.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§708-871 False advertising. (1) A person commits the offense of false advertising if, in connection with the promotion of the sale of property or services, the person knowingly or recklessly makes or causes to be made a false or misleading statement in any advertisement addressed to the public or to a substantial number of persons.

(2) "Misleading statement" includes an offer to sell property or services if the offeror does not intend to sell or provide the advertised property or services:

(a) At the price equal to or lower than the price offered;

(b) In a quantity sufficient to meet the reasonably-expected public demand, unless quantity is specifically stated in the advertisement; or

(3) False advertising is a misdemeanor. [L 1972, c 9, pt of §1; gen ch 1993]

Revision Note

In subsection (2)(a), "or" deleted pursuant to §23G-15.

Cross References

Action to enjoin violation, see §603-23.5.

Unfair trade practices, see chapters 481 to 481B.

COMMENTARY ON §708-871

This section covers any false or misleading statement, made in any advertisement addressed to the public (or to a substantial number of persons), when the statement is made in connection with the promotion or sale of goods or services. Such conduct probably does not in itself constitute theft by deception, but would rather be considered only preparatory thereto. The requisite culpability, knowledge or recklessness, extends both to the making of the statement and to the deceptive quality thereof. Commonly accepted "puffing," the advertising exaggerations presumed harmless in §708-800, is not intended to be included within the ambit of this section.

Subsection (2) is intended to cover advertising which may not be false on its face, but which is intended as a "bait" or "come-on" to attract the unwary.[1] A person may be liable under a combined reading of subsections (1) and (2) if the person offers goods or services with intent (a) to charge a higher price than that advertised, (b) to offer in a quantity insufficient to meet reasonably-expected demand, or (c) not to sell them at all. Note that under §702-206, hope that the vendor will not have to sell as advertised suffices to fulfill the requisite culpability of intent. Thus merchants who advertise with hope of persuading customers not to purchase the advertised bargain fall within the ambit of subsection (2).

The non-culpable medium or agent publishing false advertising is not liable under this section. The requisite culpability applies to the deceptive quality of the advertisement, so that independent publishing agents who are not culpable with regard to the falsity of the advertisement do not fall within the scope of this section.

Previous Hawaii law dealt with false advertising at considerable length, and was an excellent example of the kind of "telephone book" legislation which seeks to provide in advance for all possible individual contingencies, rather than to provide a general proscription.[2] The false advertising provisions in the prior Hawaii statute required about three-and-a-half pages of print. Substantively, the Code, in its abbreviated and simplified form, is quite similar to the previous law, except for the Code's somewhat stronger misdemeanor penalty (as opposed to low-grade misdemeanor previously provided).

Case Notes

In class action brought against major cigarette manufacturers, tobacco trade associations, and the industry's public relations firm, first amended complaint asserted violations of federal RICO statutes; Hawaii's RICO statute, §842-2; federal antitrust statutes; Hawaii's antitrust act, chapter 480; various state common-law torts; and false advertising under this section; defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim granted, where injuries alleged by plaintiffs trust funds in first amended complaint were not direct; even if remoteness doctrine did not bar claims, claims failed for other reasons. 52 F. Supp. 2d 1196 (1999).

__________

§708-871 Commentary:

1. Prop. Mich. Rev. Cr. Code, comments at 291.

2. H.R.S. §§747-14 through 747-19.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 14 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1990–2024 · leading case: Zanakis-Pico v. Cutter Dodge, Inc., 47 P.3d 1222 (Haw. 2002).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Zanakis-Pico v. Cutter Dodge, Inc., 47 P.3d 1222 (Haw. 2002). · cites it 8× “The Picos' third amended complaint alleged that Cutter had violated numerous statutory provisions, including: (1) HRS § 708-871 (1993) ("false advertising"); [8] (2) HRS § 480-2(a) (1993) ("unfair or deceptive acts or practices"); [9] (3) HRS § 481A-3(a)(9), (11), and (12)…”

State v. Stan's Contracting, Inc., 137 P.3d 331 (Haw. 2006). · cites it 2× “The prosecution points out that the commentaries accompanying two of the offenses within the rubric of “Business and Commercial Frauds,” HRS §§ 708-871 and 708-873, suggest that they are lesser or inchoate misdemeanor forms of theft by deception.”

Kukui Nuts of Hawaii, Inc. v. R. Baird & Co., 789 P.2d 501 (Haw. App. 1990). · cites it 2× “7 The criminal statutes cited in the complaint are HRS §§ 708-871 (prohibiting false advertising); 705-520 (conspiracy); 705-500 and -501 (attempting to commit and attempting to aid others to commit a criminal act); and 702-221, -222, and -223 (liability as accomplices).”

Hawaii Health & Welfare Trust Fund for Operating Engineers v. Philip Morris, Inc., 52 F. Supp. 2d 1196 (D. Haw. 1999). · cites it 2× “480; (5) various state common-law torts; as well as (6) False Advertising under Haw.Rev.Stat. § 708-871. The slate is not clean.”

Adkins v. Fischer., 520 P.3d 277 (Haw. App. 2022). “or the attorney general or any county attorney, prosecuting attorney, or corporation counsel may maintain an action to enjoin a continuance of any act in violation of section 708-871 .”

Maeda v. Pinnacle Foods Inc., 390 F. Supp. 3d 1231 (2019). · cites it 4× “" Haw. Rev. Stat. § 708-871 . 6 The Court finds that Plaintiff Maeda adequately states a claim for false advertising (Count 3).”

Maeda v. Kennedy Endeavors, Inc. (D. Haw. 2019). · cites it 10× “” Haw. Rev. Stat. § 708-871 . Although HRS § 708-871 is a criminal statutory provision, HRS § 603-23.”

Hawaii Foodservice All., LLC v. Meadow Gold Dairies Hawaii, LLC (D. Haw. 2023). · cites it 5× “Chapter 480 (“Count II”); (3) the Dairy Farmers committed false advertising, in violation of Haw. Rev. Stat. § 708-871 (“Count III”); and (4) the Dairy Farmers engaged in deceptive trade practices, in violation of Haw.”

Hawaii Foodservice All., LLC v. Meadow Gold Dairies Hawaii, LLC (D. Haw. 2024). · cites it 4× “See Haw. Rev. Stat. § 708-871 (1). Thus, Plaintiff cannot establish this element of its state law false advertising claim against the Supplier Defendants.”

Maeda v. Kennedy Endeavors, Inc. (D. Haw. 2021). · cites it 2× “The SAC asserts the following claims: (1) violation of Hawaii’s Unfair Deceptive Acts or Practices Statute (“UDAP”), HRS Chapter 480 (Count 1); (2) violation of Hawaii’s false advertising law, HRS § 708-871 (Count 2); (3) violation of UDTPA, HRS Chapter 481A (Count 3); (4)…”

Hawaii Foodservice All., LLC v. Meadow Gold Dairies Hawaii, LLC (D. Haw. 2024). “] pursuant to Hawai`i Revised Statutes Section 708-871 and Section 603-23.5 (“Count III”); and a deceptive trade practices claim, pursuant to Hawai`i Revised Statutes Chapter 481A (“Count IV”).”

Show all 14 citing cases →

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.