A cluster of close friends from high school is contemplating the launch of a cookie enterprise in Canada. However, their lack of prior business exposure and limited financial resources pose initial uncertainties about the process. Acknowledging these constraints, they collectively agree to undertake the majority of tasks on their own.

During a casual and amiable conversation, one of them proposed the idea of initiating the business in Ontario, with potential expansion to other provinces contingent upon its progress. The group's strategy involves crafting cookies using premium organic ingredients, including organic dough. Nonetheless, the elevated cost of organic components is noted, prompting a member to nonchalantly suggest a potentially inaccurate claim of selling organic cookies. Another member seconds this notion, highlighting the potential for leveraging a Canadian celebrity's endorsement for free marketing.

Amidst the discussion, a third member becomes particularly enthusiastic, foreseeing significant wealth. The third member offered to shoulder blame for any unmet contractual obligations, playing on his status as a 16-year-old. However, a condition is attached: if expansion occurs, the member advocates exclusively hiring young individuals due to a lack of familiarity with interacting with older adults. A fourth member reassures that member pointing out that this requirement can be included in their inaugural contract.

Recognizing the need to anticipate and circumvent legal complications for their venture's success, the groupconcluded that they have two options:

1. Using AI-generative technology to adopt "smart contract."

2. Asking you as an "expert" for advice.

What are some of the legal ramifications the group might face if one of the group's members pretended that a Canadian celebrity had endorsed their cookies? Please provide references