With respect to the post that appears immediately below this one on TPV about ebooks declining in popularity, here’s a post from Rebecca Tushnet’s 43(B)log:
“Studies Prove That Live Shows Add Years to Your Life. Who Are We to Argue with Science?”
Query whether reasonable consumers would receive a “tests prove” message. I do note that there is industry-funded research claiming that live shows improve attendees’ well-being, which they then connect to lifespan–though “years to your life” is misleadingly based on the further claim that people with high well-being live nine years longer than people with low well-being, without any evidence that concert attendance takes people from high to low. And of course it’s pure correlation, rather than causation–I suspect that people who are able to regularly see live music differ in some significant ways from people who don’t. But the advertising law question of perhaps broader interest: does the fact that there is a real study, however flawed, allegedly behind this bear on whether people are likely to receive a “tests prove” message?
Link to the rest at Rebecca Tushnet’s 43(B)log
My initial reaction on reading just the title was to finish it: whatever you want.
I’m not sure the article disproves that.