In deciding to allow POM Wonderful to pursue a false advertising lawsuit against Coca-Cola, the Supreme Court discussed the Lanham Act, Food and Drug Administration rules, and Federal Trade Commission rules. What does this indicate about the current state of federal oversight of false advertising.

What will be an ideal response?

Answers should/can include the following points: (1) In a word: Confusing. Or complicated. Or contradictory. (2) Here, a good student will perhaps recall that clarity in the law is a basic tenet of the rule of law. Yet, not only is false advertising regulated by a multiplicity of federal agencies, rules, regulations, and laws, it also involves First Amendment principles and common law precedents. (3) In addition, none of these areas is stable, nor are they necessarily shifting in clear, consistent, and predictable ways. (4) A foundational critique of the regulation of false advertising (and commercial speech more generally) is its failure to really inform citizens, corporations, or consumers of what is/is not legal. This is a fundamental failure in the law.