7 Shocking Misleading Advertising Examples and What They Cost Brands

In a world where 38% of Americans rely on social media for news, misleading advertising isn’t just unethical—it’s increasingly impactful.

What starts as a clever campaign, like Red Bull’s well-known slogan, can quickly draw legal attention and public criticism.

As consumer advocates, we stress that transparency is more than best practice—it’s a safeguard.

These 7 misleading advertising examples reveal how quickly trust can unravel when marketing crosses the line.

What is misleading advertising?

Misleading advertising happens when an ad says something false, hides the truth, or makes you believe something that isn’t real.

According to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), ads must be truthful, not misleading, and backed by evidence when needed—especially for health or money-related claims.

“When consumers see or hear an advertisement, whether it’s on the Internet, radio or television, or anywhere else, federal law says that ad must be truthful, not misleading, and, when appropriate, backed by scientific evidence.”— Federal Trade Commission

The FTC applies these rules across the board: websites, TV, social media, print, email—you name it.

There's a difference between puffery and deception.

• Puffery is hype—like “best pizza in town.” It’s vague, and people know it’s just opinion.
• Deception is when an ad leads people to believe something specific that’s untrue or leaves out important facts.

“The key difference between false advertising and puffery is whether the advertising contains objective statements or expresses a mere opinion. Factual claims can be proven true or false. However, the line between opinion and fact is sometimes blurry. This is where having an experienced New York business litigation attorney can help.”— Rosenbaum & Taylor P.C

The FTC can take serious action if you cross the line—freeze your assets, shut down your ads, or take you to court.

They’ve already sent warning letters to companies during COVID-19 for ads that made false health claims.

So as a marketer, it’s not just about clever copy—it’s about staying honest, legal, and credible.

Good ad creative should boost attention without making false claims. 

If you want to design visually engaging, high-converting ads the right way, check out our guide on Creative Ads Design - Examples and Inspirations.

7 real-world examples of misleading advertising

From exaggerated health claims to deceptive product visuals, here’s what happens when marketing goes too far.

1. Red Bull – “Gives You Wings” 

Red Bull, 2014

Red Bull has long used the slogan “Red Bull gives you wings”, positioning its energy drink as a performance-enhancing product. The brand implied the drink could improve concentration, reaction speed, and mental or physical performance.

The key issue wasn’t just the metaphorical “wings”—it was the suggestion that Red Bull offered functional benefits beyond typical caffeine sources, like coffee or pills.

Plaintiffs argued the drink didn’t do what it claimed, pointing out that “there is no genuine scientific research and there are no scientifically reliable studies” proving Red Bull’s superiority over a regular cup of coffee.

As one court filing stated:

“The Red Bull defendants prey upon consumers by promising that, among other things, ‘Red Bull gives you wings’ by providing a mixture of ingredients that... significantly improve a consumer’s physiological and mental performance beyond what a simple cup of coffee... would do.” BeverageDaily, 2014

This wasn’t considered puffery—a legal term for exaggerated but clearly non-literal marketing. Plaintiffs claimed it crossed the line into deception, a claim with legal weight under consumer protection laws.

In 2013, Benjamin Careathers filed a class-action lawsuit in New York, later joined by other similar cases from California. The lawsuits were consolidated, alleging false advertising and deceptive practices under U.S. law.

Consumers who felt misled could join the class action—many of whom had been drinking Red Bull for years, expecting real benefits based on the advertising.

Red Bull maintained its marketing was “truthful and accurate”, but opted to settle to “avoid the cost and distraction of litigation.”

Red Bull agreed to a $13 million settlement, which allowed eligible U.S. customers to claim either $10 in cash or $15 worth of Red Bull products.

Due to high demand, the settlement website reportedly crashed under traffic from eager claimants. However, the actual payout per person depended on the total number of claims filed.

Red Bull also revised certain marketing claims and stated in court that:

“All future claims about the functional benefits of its products will be medically and/or scientifically supported.” BeverageDaily, 2014

Though Red Bull did not admit any wrongdoing, the settlement was widely seen as a preemptive move to avoid further consumer fraud or product liability cases.

2. Skechers Shape-Ups

Skechers USA, Inc., 2012

Skechers heavily marketed its Shape-ups as shoes that could help wearers lose weight, tone muscles, and improve overall fitness—just by walking in them.

Ads included bold taglines like:

“Shape up while you walk,” and “Get in shape without setting foot in a gym.”

Celebrity endorsements added even more punch—Kim Kardashian dumped her personal trainer for a pair of Shape-ups in a high-profile Super Bowl ad, and Brooke Burke claimed the shoes could help burn calories and strengthen muscles.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) said Skechers deceived consumers by promoting fitness benefits that weren’t backed by credible science.

The company cited an “independent study” by chiropractor Dr. Steven Gautreau to support its claims—but the FTC revealed:

• The study didn’t show the results Skechers claimed.
• Skechers failed to disclose that Dr. Gautreau was married to a Skechers marketing executive.
• He was paid by Skechers, casting doubt on the independence of the research.

The FTC also took issue with other unproven claims, such as Shape-ups burning more calories and activating more muscles than regular shoes, and the cherry-picking of results to support inflated performance stats.

The FTC filed formal charges against Skechers for violating federal advertising law. The settlement was part of a broader investigation by 44 U.S. states and the District of Columbia, led by the Tennessee and Ohio Attorneys General.

David Vladeck, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, stated:

“Skechers’ unfounded claims went beyond stronger and more toned muscles. The company even made claims about weight loss and cardiovascular health.”

This wasn’t a slap on the wrist—it was a major move in the FTC’s broader crackdown on fitness and health-related advertising.

Skechers agreed to pay $40 million to settle the charges. The money was used to refund customers who had purchased Shape-ups, Tone-ups, Resistance Runner, or Toners.

As part of the settlement, Skechers was banned from making any future health claims about their toning shoes without reliable scientific evidence. That includes claims about:

• Weight loss
• Muscle tone
• Blood circulation
• Calorie burn
• Muscle activation

They were also prohibited from misrepresenting research or clinical studies in their ads.

3. Airborne Supplements 

Airborne Health, Inc., 2008

Airborne marketed itself as a miracle cold buster, claiming it could prevent colds and protect consumers from germs.

The company said the supplement would “boost your immune system to help your body combat germs,” and encouraged consumers to take it at the first sign of cold symptoms or before entering crowded spaces.

They emphasized that the product was “created by a schoolteacher,” giving it a relatable, trustworthy image.

There was no credible scientific evidence supporting Airborne’s claims. 

According to the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), Airborne was essentially “an overpriced, run-of-the-mill vitamin pill that’s been cleverly, but deceptively, marketed.”

ABC News revealed that Airborne’s so-called clinical trial was actually conducted by a two-person operation with no doctors or real scientists involved.

Even worse, just two pills could deliver 10,000 IU of Vitamin A, the maximum safe daily limit—raising additional health concerns.

After the ABC News investigation aired in 2006, public trust in Airborne crumbled.

A class-action lawsuit was filed, supported by consumer groups and nutrition experts, accusing the company of false advertising.

The lawsuit revealed that Airborne had intentionally blurred the line between a basic supplement and a legitimate cold medicine, often pushing retailers to stock it alongside real cold and flu treatments.

Stephen Gardner, Litigation Director at CSPI, called it:

“One of the biggest supplement frauds in the country.”

Meanwhile, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and 24 state attorneys general also opened investigations into Airborne’s marketing practices.

Airborne agreed to settle the lawsuit for $23.3 million.

The company was required to refund customers who purchased their products, running announcements in major magazines and newspapers to inform people about how to claim their money.

Airborne did not admit any wrongdoing as part of the settlement but was forced to tone down its advertising, shifting from cold prevention claims to vague “immunity boosting” language.

4. Burger King – Whopper Size Misrepresentation 

Burger King Corporation, lawsuit filed March 2020 (ongoing as of 2024)

Burger King advertised its signature Whopper as larger and more heavily packed than what was actually being served.

The lawsuit claims Burger King’s promotional materials made Whoppers appear almost twice as large as the real sandwiches customers received.

Specifically, ads showcased Whoppers with oversized patties and ingredients overflowing from the bun, suggesting a more generous portion than what was delivered.

Plaintiffs argue that the actual burgers were about 35% smaller than advertised.

While Burger King defended itself by saying food ads are stylized to look their best, the lawsuit maintains that the size difference was so substantial it could mislead reasonable consumers.

Burger King also contended that the beef patty size shown referred to precooked weight, not the final product.

However, according to the lawsuit, the visual presentation materially misrepresented the product in a way that impacted purchase decisions.

The class-action lawsuit was filed on behalf of customers from multiple states, including Florida, New York, Illinois, and Massachusetts.

Plaintiffs expressed disappointment and frustration, stating that had they known the Whopper was significantly smaller, they might not have made the purchase.

U.S. District Judge Roy Altman allowed parts of the lawsuit to move forward, particularly claims of negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment.

He noted that it should be up to consumers, not the court alone, to determine whether the differences in size were enough to mislead purchasing decisions.

Burger King responded firmly, stating:

“The plaintiffs’ claims are false. The flame-grilled beef patties in our advertising are the same we serve nationwide.”

The company sought dismissal of the case, but the court refused to dismiss the key claims, allowing the lawsuit to proceed.

As of 2024, the lawsuit is still ongoing, and no final settlement or verdict has been announced.

The case reflects a wider trend in food litigation, with over 100 food-related lawsuits filed in 2023—a sharp rise compared to just 19 in 2008, according to Perkins Coie law firm data.

Louis Tompros, an intellectual property expert, observed:

“This is where advertising falls between a clear factual claim and pure puffery, making it one of the most interesting legal areas.”

Burger King’s Whopper controversy also parallels lawsuits against McDonald’s, Wendy’s, and Buffalo Wild Wings, showing how “truth in food advertising” is becoming a hot-button legal issue.

5. Volkswagen – Diesel Emissions Scandal

Volkswagen Group, 2015

Volkswagen marketed its diesel cars—especially models like the Jetta, Passat, Golf, Beetle, and Audi A3—as "clean diesel" vehicles with low emissions and environmentally friendly performance.

The company’s massive U.S. marketing campaign promoted these cars as better for the planet, encouraging consumers to believe they were making a smart, eco-friendly choice.

In September 2015, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) discovered that Volkswagen had installed a "defeat device" in diesel engines.

This software could detect when the vehicle was undergoing emissions testing and temporarily adjust the engine performance to reduce emissions.

Once off the test rig and back on real roads, the cars emitted up to 40 times more nitrogen oxides than allowed under U.S. standards.

Volkswagen later admitted that around 11 million vehicles worldwide were fitted with this cheating software.

Michael Horn, then CEO of Volkswagen America, publicly admitted:

“We’ve totally screwed up.”

Former CEO Martin Winterkorn also resigned, stating:

“We have broken the trust of our customers and the public.”

The scandal caused global outrage, with investigations launched not only in the United States but also in Germany, France, South Korea, the UK, Canada, and Italy.

The EPA had the authority to fine Volkswagen up to $37,500 per non-compliant vehicle, with a theoretical maximum fine of $18 billion just for the 482,000 cars in the U.S..

Volkswagen also faced class-action lawsuits from consumers and legal actions from shareholders, leading to one of the largest corporate scandals in automotive history.

The company’s stock price plunged by nearly a third after the news broke.

Volkswagen ultimately faced total costs exceeding $30 billion, including:

• Fines and penalties
• Vehicle recalls
• Buyback programs
• Legal settlements with customers, dealers, and governments

They initially set aside €6.7 billion (about $7.4 billion) just to cover early expenses.

The scandal forced Volkswagen to recall 8.5 million cars in Europe and over 500,000 in the U.S..

Beyond the financial losses, Volkswagen’s brand trust was deeply damaged, and the company had to commit to major internal reforms and shift future investments toward electric vehicle development.

6. Activia Yogurt – “Regulates Digestion” Claims 

Dannon Company, Inc., 2010

Dannon marketed its Activia and DanActive yogurts as "clinically proven" to regulate digestion and boost immune health.

High-profile ad campaigns featured actress Jamie Lee Curtis, who endorsed Activia as both "tasty" and scientifically backed.

The problem? Dannon's claims about digestive benefits and immune system support were not properly substantiated by science.

Although promoted as "clinically proven," the evidence behind the claims was either inconclusive or exaggerated.

As Dr. Roshini Rajapaksa, a gastroenterologist, explained:

"This was a disingenuous advertising campaign that promised something that hasn’t been proven.”

The yogurts also sold at a 30% premium compared to other brands because of these health claims.

A class-action lawsuit was filed after consumers, including a Los Angeles caterer, reported no noticeable improvements in digestion despite believing the ads.

Attorney Timothy Blood, representing the plaintiffs, stated:

“Deceptive advertising has enabled Dannon to sell hundreds of millions of dollars worth of ordinary yogurt at inflated prices.”

The U.S. District Court in Cleveland approved the settlement.

Dannon agreed to a $45 million settlement.

The company also had to change the wording of its marketing claims for Activia and DanActive products moving forward.

This case became a landmark example of how health-related marketing must be backed by credible, provable science.

7. Lumosity – Brain Game False Health Claims 

Lumos Labs, Inc., 2016

Lumosity advertised its "brain training" games as tools that could sharpen memory, boost work and academic performance, and even prevent cognitive decline related to aging, dementia, and Alzheimer’s disease.

They marketed the platform heavily through TV, radio, online ads, Google AdWords, and social media.

According to the FTC, Lumosity did not have reliable scientific evidence to support its bold health claims.

Jessica Rich, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, said:

“Lumosity preyed on consumers’ fears about age-related cognitive decline, suggesting their games could stave off memory loss, dementia, and even Alzheimer’s disease.”

Further, some positive testimonials featured in ads were obtained by offering prizes like free subscriptions and iPads—without disclosing this to the public.

The Federal Trade Commission charged Lumosity with deceptive advertising for falsely promising real-world cognitive benefits.

Consumers who trusted Lumosity’s claims ended up paying for monthly, yearly, or even lifetime subscriptions without receiving the scientifically-proven benefits they were promised.

Lumosity agreed to pay $2 million in consumer redress and had a larger $50 million judgment suspended due to financial limitations.

The company was ordered to:

• Notify subscribers about the FTC action.
• Provide easy cancellation options for auto-renewal plans.
• Back future health claims with competent and reliable scientific evidence.

What these cases teach us

Brands often overreach because they want an emotional hook that makes people buy faster.

But stretching the truth can land you in legal trouble—and kill your reputation even faster.

Misleading ads might bring a quick sales boost, but the damage to long-term trust can take years and millions of dollars to fix.

Getting sued isn’t the only thing you risk.

Public backlash often hurts more, costing brand loyalty, lost sales, and future business you never even see.

Smart marketers know:

• Short-term hype is never worth long-term damage.
• Building real credibility beats any viral campaign.
• The best marketing asset is trust—and once you lose it, it’s almost impossible to buy back.

Choosing the right ad format is just as important as getting your claims right. See which formats drive the best results in our post on 8 Most Effective Social Media Ad Formats.

FAQs

Got other questions? Here’s a quick rundown of the most common ones:

Final thoughts

These misleading advertising examples show how easily trust can be lost—and how hard it is to win back. Staying transparent, creative, and ethical is the smarter move. 

If you want to design high-performing ads that captivate without crossing the line, Cropink can help. Build campaigns that look amazing and stay true to your brand.

Sources

1. Statista. Misinformation on social media - statistics & facts
2. Federal Trade Commission. Truth In Advertising
3. Rosenbaum & Taylor P.C. Puffery vs False Advertising
4. Independent. Red Bull awards $13m to its customers for not giving them wings
5. BeverageDaily. Red Bull offers $13m to settle false advertising lawsuit; 'No way judge will approve this', says attorney
6. Federal Trade Commission. Skechers Will Pay $40 Million to Settle FTC Charges That It Deceived Consumers with Ads for "Toning Shoes"
7. The New York Times. Airborne Settles Lawsuit
8. Center for Science in the Public Interest. Airborne Agrees to Pay $23.3 Million to Settle Lawsuit Over False Advertising of its "Miracle Cold Buster"
9. The Russo Trial Lawyers. Burger King Class Action Lawsuit for Whopper Misrepresentation
10. Yahoo! Life. The Biggest Burger Chain Lawsuits Of All Time
11. BBC News. Volkswagen: The scandal explained
12. ABC News. Dannon to Pay $45M to Settle Yogurt Lawsuit
13. Federal Trade Commission. Lumosity to Pay $2 Million to Settle FTC Deceptive Advertising Charges for Its “Brain Training” Program