Why Can Brands Get Away With Lying?

We live in a world where truth, in the hands of brands, is often more pliable than concrete. Take, for instance, that bottle of cranberry juice you might pick up at the store. It’s labeled as “cranberry,” but the truth—tucked somewhere in the fine print—is that it’s mostly apple juice with a touch of cranberry flavor. Is it misleading? Legally, no. Practically, yes. And we’re left with a big question: if truth requires an exercise in logic and fine print to discern, is it even there?

The Game of “Technical Truth”

Brands often rely on what I’ll call the “technical truth”—statements that pass legal scrutiny but make little effort to align with our expectations. Take the cereal aisle as another example. Boxes shout about “whole grains” and “natural flavors,” yet a quick glance at the ingredients reveals sugars, preservatives, and other fillers that hardly meet the wholesome picture the front of the box suggests. These claims are legal because, technically, they’re true. But technical truth doesn’t necessarily mean honesty.

In consumer law, there’s something called puffery—exaggeration so vague or broad that it’s not intended to be taken literally. This is why a brand can call itself the “best” without backing it up, or sell a snack as “natural” even if most of its ingredients are lab creations. Puffery, at its core, is about bending truth until it’s stretched thin but not broken.

The Role of Ambiguity

Companies have mastered understanding that most consumers don’t have the time—or the inclination—to investigate every ingredient on a label. A 2020 study found that less than a third of shoppers regularly read the fine print. This opens the door for brands to exploit ambiguities without crossing any legal lines. The bottle of “cranberry” juice that’s actually mostly apple juice? They’re not lying if cranberry essence is indeed in there somewhere. But they’re leaning on our assumptions, trusting that we won’t look closely enough to spot the half-truth.

Consider this in practice: Breyers, the ice cream brand, recently faced a lawsuit because their “natural vanilla” label turned out to be flavored primarily with synthetic vanillin. There was natural vanilla in there—just not as the main flavor source. The legal outcome wasn’t an admission of wrongdoing; it was a settlement, a financial decision rather than a correction of the practice. This kind of ambiguity is deliberate: a product like this uses the smallest amount of something “real” to create the impression of authenticity.

Why This Matters

Now, why does this all matter? To answer that, let’s step back and consider what’s really happening here. In theory, brands are supposed to be reliable guides to quality and consistency. A consumer choosing between products often relies on those brand claims as a shorthand for quality, making quick judgments based on what the packaging conveys. When that trust is eroded, it’s more than just an inconvenience. A 2022 survey by the American Marketing Association found that nearly half of consumers experience “trust issues” with brands, primarily because of misleading claims.

This erosion of trust doesn’t happen overnight. It’s incremental, building up one misleading label at a time. Eventually, consumers become suspicious and jaded, and brands that once stood for reliability become symbols of exploitation. When brands push ambiguity to its limits, they risk losing not only individual customers but the wider trust of their market.

Why Do We Allow It?

The fascinating part is why we, as consumers, continue to let these small deceits go unchecked. Part of it, perhaps, is convenience. Reading labels and comparing ingredients is time-consuming. More often than not, we make a mental note to avoid something next time and move on.

There’s also a more subtle, psychological angle. People have an innate tendency to trust, especially when trust makes life simpler. It’s easier to believe in a product’s promises than to remain perpetually skeptical. Brands know this, and they rely on our desire for convenience and familiarity.

As philosopher Harry Frankfurt noted in his essay “On Bullshit,” lying requires a respect for truth, as it’s the thing being denied. But with misleading claims, it’s not truth that’s denied—it’s simply devalued, turned into a marketing tool, which allows it to slip under the radar.

Should We Expect Better?

The reality is that brands operate within a framework they didn’t create. Regulations allow a degree of ambiguity, and marketing departments make the most of it. But perhaps it’s our responsibility, as consumers, to push back a little. To demand not just legally passable claims but actual transparency. After all, if truth needs to be dug out of fine print and legal disclaimers, is it really truth?