The words “I’ve fallen and I can’t get up!” were part of a TV commercial for a device whose marketing was directed at the elderly and whose appeal was that the device was hooked to communication links with emergency care providers. In fact, the device provided a link, but not a direct link, to a 911 number; some interlink delay would occur in notifying emergency personnel. The devices, worn around the neck, were in fact a means of effecting communication when the wearer could not get to a phone. However, the device was not directly linked to a 911 number.

Officials in Arizona brought charges against the company for deceptive advertising. Standards in Arizona require proof only that someone could be misled by the commercials; actions against advertisers do not require proof that someone was actually misled. The devices have been a help to many people, bringing assistance to those who would otherwise, because of temporary or permanent mobility impairment, be unable to call for help. Officials in other states did not find the ads misleading. Does Arizona have jurisdiction?

If you were an official for the company, would you change all of your ads or modify only those in Arizona? Were the ads unethical?