Timeline for Is listing an inapplicable warning illegal?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 9, 2023 at 18:52 | comment | added | Someone | Doesn't putting the burden of proof for a major element of the case basically make it "guilty until proven innocent?" | |
| Jul 3, 2016 at 15:02 | vote | accept | j0h | ||
| Jul 2, 2016 at 1:36 | comment | added | user6726 | The risk is, if competitors don't do likewise, your product could be at a marketing disadvantage, since many people might think "Oh no, they're putting poison in Brand X Candy, so I better switch to Brand Y which doesn't have the warnings and therefore must be safer!". Also, you'd need a really big box to fit all of the warnings. | |
| Jul 2, 2016 at 1:13 | comment | added | feetwet♦ | So, assuming there is no marginal production cost to printing warnings, a rational business would apply as many warnings as possible to its products, even if they are completely inapplicable? | |
| Jul 1, 2016 at 18:42 | history | edited | user6726 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 356 characters in body
|
| Jul 1, 2016 at 17:10 | comment | added | user3851 | This is the examplar compliant warning that the government gives: p65warnings.ca.gov/sites/default/files/downloads/chemicals/… | |
| Jul 1, 2016 at 17:06 | history | answered | user6726 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |