Are Manufacturers and Retailers Permitted to Exaggerate? Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company 14 In this case, the defendants manufactured a product that they claimed would pro- tect users from influenza. They offered $100 to anyone who used their product as prescribed and still contracted influenza, and stated in an advertisement that $1000 had been deposited in the Alliance Bank, Regent Street, which showed their sincerity in the matter. Mrs. Carlill used the product, got influenza, and claimed the money; however, the company reneged, stating that the advertisement was an advertising puff that merely indicated some enthusiasm for the product and was not meant to be taken seriously by the public. The Court held that depositing money to back up the claim had taken it out of the category of an advertising puff. It was deter- mined that a reasonable person would have thought the advertisement was seri- ous, so the offer was valid. There was intention, and Mrs. Carlill's use of the product and contracting the illness were appropriate forms of acceptance; thus, there was a valid contract. Misleading advertising has become a much greater problem and is now con- trolled by legislation