Is there any reasonable basis on which a firm could sell this Ionized Bracelet and believe that it was not engaged in deceptive advertising, using the facts in this case? Reasons are tools, and in...

Is there any reasonable basis on which a firm could sell this Ionized Bracelet and believe that it was not engaged in deceptive advertising, using the facts in this case? Reasons are tools, and in most situations one can provide a reason for what seems like even the most bizarre behavior. This case provides you an opportunity to think about the need to be very careful to examine the of reasons. The existence of a reason is only the first step in propounding an argument on which we should rely.

1. What logic might QT use to justify its claim that the district court used an overly rigorous standard of proof in finding against QT? Clue: Does deception require more than the possibility of potential deception before it rises to the level of illegal advertising? Might the claims QT was making be so outrageous that no reasonable consumer would have believed them?

 2. What is the relevance of Judge Easterbrook’s elephants-in-the-streets analogy to an assessment of QT’s reasoning? Clue: Why do we even require claims to have reliable proof?